1920-04-26

ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain, please.


Mr. TOLMIE:: ' The Bill proposes an amendment of that section of the Act which refers to compensation. Under the present Act, where an animal which is killed on account of contagious disease is not badly enough diseased to be entirely destroyed and is sold as fit for food, it is quite possible

for the owner to obtain more for the animal so destroyed than he could have obtained for it had it been in healthy condition. An amendment is being made in that respect. Then, the amount of the fine is being changed from a maximum of $200 to range from $50 up to $500.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73 (letter T of the Senate), for the relief of Ignace Perugini.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 74 (letter U of the Senate), for the relief of William Murray Gray.-Mr. Mac-Nutt.
Bill No. 76 (letter X of the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Stewart Addison.-Mr. Stewart (Lanark).
Bill No. 77 (letter Y of the Senate), for the relief of Fedorin Cope.-Mr	Douglas
(Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
After reading a long answer to a question which was required to be answered orally, Sir George Foster (Acting Prime Minister) said:
May I suggest that it is difficult to see what good purpose is achieved by requiring these lengthy answers to be read by a long-suffering and over-tired ministry? It seems to me that the desired end would be attained if such answers were laid on the Table without being delivered orally.

Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has the International Commission appointed in regard to the St. John river about eight years ago made a report to the Government?
2.	If so. do the lumbermen in the State of Maine still divert the waters of Chamberlain Lake into the Penobscot river?
3.	Did the State of Maine make a report of the findings of said Commission to the Department of Public Works or to any other departments? If so, when?
4.	Di<i the Government ever publish any report obtained from said commission? If so, when?
5.	What were the total costs paid in connection with said commission?
Rt. Hon. Mr, SIFTON:	'
1.	Yes.
2.	No information.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	$79,481.87.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE- LOADING AND UNLOADING.
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	Does the Government intend to call for tenders for the loading and unloading of vessels of the Canadian Merchant Marine, at each port of landing?
2.	If so, what method is to he adopted for the calling of tenders?
3.	If not, what is the reason of the policy of the Government?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	The department has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.
2.	Answered by Number 1.
3.	Answered by Number 1.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE- PURCHASE OP COAL.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Did the Railway Department or the Canadian Government Merchant Marine (Limited) or any one on their behalf purchase a cargo of coal at Halifax or elsewhere in Nova Scotia to toad one of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine (Limited) for delivery abroad?
2.	If so, from what company or person was said coal purchased?
3 What was the price paid?
4.	Was a commission paid to any broker or company or other person and if so how much?
5.	How many tons were purchased?
6.	Were tenders invited by public advertisement in the newspapers for the purchase of said coal?
7.	Who was the lowest tenderer?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	The department has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by (the Canadian 'Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.
2.	Answered by Number 1,
3.	Answered by Number 1.
4.	Answered by Number 1.
5.	Answered by Number 1.
6.	Answered by Number 1.
7.	Answered by Number 1.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS INSUR-'	ANCE-FIRE INSURANCE.


Mr. PARDEE:: 1.	With whom was the fire insurance on the Canadian National railways placed, and by whom?
2.	What individuals or firms were asked to compete upon it?
3.	In what companies was the insurance effected and at what rate?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	The department has no returns in its record showing information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by the Canadian National Railway as an incorporated company.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


PRINTING BUREAU-MR. L. R. WOLFF.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Who is the man named Wolff, stationed at the .Printing Bureau, supervising the dismissal of employees?
2.	Was he naturalized Canadian before he was brought here from Chicago by the Civil Service Commission?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	Dismissals from the staff of the Printing Bureau are made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. L. R. Wolff is a staff member of the Industrial Engineering Department of the firm of Arthur Young and Company. He is assigned by the Civil Service Commission o assist in the re-organization work being carried on by the commission at the direction of the Government in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
2.	He was not.


RECLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Has the Civil Service Commission called upon the services of Canadian experts to revise the classification of the technical employees? And, if so, is it because the classification of the United States experts was not acceptable?
2.	Is it within the province of the Civil Service Commission to lay down rules for the preparation of Estimates for the different departments?
3.	Are those American so-called experts authorized to correspond directly with the heads of the different departments, and give instructions presumed to come from the Civil Service Commission?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	No.
2.	In connection with the new schedule of salaries created by the application of the classification certain changes in the form of the Estimates were necessary and the commission obviously, was consulted and required to submit suggestions with regard, to such changes.
3.	No.


CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE-CAPTAINS.
Mr. CHISHOLM:: 1.	What are the names of the cantains now employed on board the ships of the Canadian

Government Merchant Marino a, present in commission and where were they born?
2 What are the names of the first officers of the said ships and where were they bom?
Hon. J. ID. REID:
1.	The department has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.
2.	Answered by Number 1.


EXPORT OF ELECTRIC POWER.
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Referring to the "Report on Export of
Electricity from Canada" made by the Power Controller, Sir Henry Drayton, and laid on the table of the House on June 2, 1919: What are the names of the officers and directors of the three companies therein mentioned, namely :	The Ontario Power Company, the Canadian Niagara Power Company, The Electrical Development Company?
2.	How much power is each of the abovenamed companies exporting out of Canada at the present time?
3.	What is the greatest amount of power ever exported by each of the said companies?
4.	Has each company applied annually for a license to export power, and if so, what are the highest figures in their respective annual applications for export?
5.	Between the 11th September 1917, and the date of P.C. 2531, quoted by the Power Controller in the above-mentioned report, and the present time, has each of the said companies faithfully filled its contracts to supply power to its customers in Canada while applying for permission to export power out of Canada, if not, what are the names of the directors and officers of the company or companies in default ?
6.	Is it the practice of the honourable minister from whose department export licenses-are issued to inquire, or to have inquiries made, regarding the ability of a Canadian company to fill the power requiremenfs of its Canadian customers before issuing licenses to the company in question to export power?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I.	The Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls, Ont.-Directors: Sir Adam Beck,. Hon, I. B. Lucas, Col. D. Carmichael, W. P. Pope, F. A. Gaby, J. W, Gilmour, Cbl.. C. S. Maclnnes.
Officers: Sir Adam Beck, President; Hon.
I.	B. Lucas, Vice-president; iW. P. Pope,. Secretary; F. A. Gaby, Chief Engineer; J. W. Gilmour, Treasurer. Canadian Niagara Power Company.-Directors:	A. Munro
Grier, W. H. Brouse, Hon. Wallace Nesbitt, K. C., Paul A. Schoellkopf, Morris-Cohn, Jr., W. Paxton Little.
Officers: A. Munro Grier, President; W. H. Brouse, Vice-president; Paul A. Schoellkopf, General Manager; W. Paxton Little, Treasurer; F.' C. Durdan, Secretary.
Electrical Development Company of Ontario, Limited.-Directors: Sir Henry M.

Pellat, Hon. P. Nicholls, Sir William MacKenzie, E. R. Wood, G. H. Smithers, F. W. Ross, D. P. McDougall, H. Mackay, H. H. McRae.
Officers.-Sir Henry M. Pellat, President; Hon. F. B. Nicholls, First Vice-president; Sir William MacKenzie, Second Vice-president; J. C. Grace, Secretary; D. P. McDoug-all, Treasurer.
2.	The average export for month of February, 1920, was as follows:-Ontario Power *Company (Hydro-Electric Power Commission), 42,687 kilowatts; Canadian Niagara Power Company, 15,675 kilowatts; Electrical Development Company, 11,845 kilowatts.
3.	The maximum export peaks since March 31, 1916, for the respective companies are as follows: Ontario Power Company (Hydro-Electric Power Commission), 55,680 kilowatts; Canadian Niagara Power Company, 52,910 kilowatts; Electrical Development Company, 22,240 kilowatts.
4.	Each company has applied annually for a license to export power except during the period the export was under the Power Controller when no licenses were issued. The highest figures in their respective applications for export (except during the interregnum mentioned) were:-Ontario Power Company (owned by the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario), 00,000 kilowatts; Canadian Niagara Power Company, 55,000 kilowatts; Electrical Development Company,. 35,000 kilowatts.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.


MR. EUSTACE G. BIRD.
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: 1.	Is it true that Eustace G. Bird is a Government employee, in the Architectural Branch, Public Works Department?
2.	Is it true that he is conducting a private office at No. 6 King street W., Toronto?
3.	If so, from what date?
4.	Is it the policy of the Department of Public Works to allow an employee to conduct or engage in a private enterprise?
5.	How much does he receive per month?
6.	In what category is he classed, and what would he receive under the reclassification?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	and 3. Mr. Bird was a practising architect for many years in Toronto with his office at No. 6 King Street, West, and so far as known he has never given up his office. He was appointed as Inspector of Military Hospitals temporarily in May, 1918, and since that time has been employed as General Supervisor of Hospitals in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces.
4.	It is not the policy of the department to allow a permanent member of the Civil Service to do so, but Mr. Bird was one of the many outsiders temporarily employed by the Government on war work and such employees were never required to sever their regular and ordinary business connections for the reason that their employment by the Government was only of a temporary and special character. Mr. Bird will be through about June 1.
5.	$250 per month; $3,000 per annum.
6.	If retained in the service, he would be classified as a Supervising Architect at $3,300 to $4,020 per annum.


ORE MINING AND SMELTING MACHINERY.
Mr. CAMPBELL :: 1.	What machinery, if any, used in the mining, recovery, or In the preparing for market of the hereinafter mentioned natural resources of Canada, are allowed to be imported into Canada without the payment of import duties and war taxes: (a) ores of gold, silver and other rare and precious metals, (b) ores of copper, nickel, zinc, lead, cobalt and similar metals, (c) ores of iron, manganese, chrome, molybdenum, graphite, pyrites, (d) coal, salt, crude oil, natural gas and oil yielding shales?
Hon. Mr7 BURRELL:
(a)	Tariff item 460:-
Diamond drills, core drills, machinery for extraction of precious metals by the chlorination or cyanide processes, amalgam safes, automatic ore samplers, automatic feeders, retorts, . mercury pumps, pyrometers, bullion furnaces, amalgam cleaners. Tariff item 461:-
Machinery and appliances of iron or steel, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and elevators and machinery of floating dredges, when for use exclusively in alluvial gold mining.
Tariff item 462:-
Blowers of iron or steel of a class or kind not made in Canada, for* use in the smelting of ores, or in the reduction, separation or refining of metals, rotary kilns, revolving roasters and furnaces of metal of a class or kind not made in Canada, designed for roasting ore, mineral, rock or clay; furnace slag trucks and slag pots of a class or kind not made in Canada.
Tariff item 469:-
Well-drilling machinery and apparatus of a class or kind not made in Canada, for prospecting for minerals.
(b)	Tariff item 460:-
Diamond drills, core drills, furnaces for the smelting of copper, zinc and nickel ores; converting apparatus for metallurgical processes in metals, automatic ore samples, automatic feeders, retorts, pyrometers, blast furnace blowing engines.

Tariff item 462:-
As heretofore quoted under (a).
Tariff item 469:-
As heretofore quoted under (a).
(c)	Tariff item 460:-
Diamond drills, core drills, electric or magnetic machines for separating or concentrating iron ores, converting apparatus for metallurgical processes in metals, automatic ore samplers, automatic feeders, re- [DOT] torts, pyrometers, blast furnace blowing engines.
Tariff item 462:-
As heretofore quoted under (a).
Tariff item 469:-
As heretofore quoted under (a).
(d)	Tariff item 460:-
Diamond drills, coal cutting machines, except percussion coal cutters, coal augers and rotary coal drills, coal heading machines, core drills, retorts.
Tariff item 462:-
Rotary kilns, revolving roasters and furnaces of metal of a class or kind not made in Canada, designed for roasting ore, mineral rock or clay, furnace slag trucks and slag pots of a class or kind not made in Canada.
Tariff item 469:-
Welbdrilling machinery and apparatus of a class or kind not madp in Canada, for drilling for natural gas and oil, and for prospecting for minerals.
Tariff item 462a:-
Briquette-making machines.
.	CEREAiL SHIPMENTS.


Mr. OOPP:: 
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 
' CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY LANDS.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What lands in the province of Quebec did Messrs. MacKenzie and Mann, either as a company or individually, or the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any subsidiary company with which Sir William MacKenzie or Sir Donald Mann or the Canadian Northern Railway was connected, own or control at the time the Government took over the management of the Canadian Northern railway?
2.	If any, what was the acreage of each individual lot?

3.	Did the Government assume control of any lands in the province of Quebec with which Sir William MacKenzie or Sir Donald Mann or the Canadian Northern Railway or any subsidiary company were connected with, when taking over the Canadian Northern railway?
4.	If so, what did they consist of?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. The Canadian Northern Railway and its subsidiary companies had earned 439,380 acres under contracts with the province of Quebec for construction of certain branch

lines at the time the Government took over the management of the Canadian Northern railway. The position has not since been changed and there is no record beyond this.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


OLEOMARGARINE REGULATIONS.
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont) :: 1.	Have there been any prosecutions under the regulations governing the sale of oleomargarine in Canada since December, 1917?
2.	If so, how many convictions have been secured?
3.	How many confiscations of oleomargarine have been made since December, 1917, for violations of said regulations?
4.	Who were the parties convicted? And when were convictions secured?
5.	What fines were imposed?
6.	Were the licenses of those convicted cancelled?


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes. Sixteen prosecutions.
2.	Sixteen convictions.
3.	Sixteen confiscations.
4.	Date of conviction with name and address of convicted party: May 19, 1918, Hardy & Bro., St. Basile de Portneuf, Que.; February 20, 1919, National Lunch (W. E. Breaw, prop.), Winnipeg, Man.; February 21, 1919, Stanley Cafe (M. Moricy, prop). Winnipeg, Man.; February 9, 1919, P. A. Galipeau, Montreal, Que.; May 12, 1919, Canada Produce Co., Montreal; May 12, 1919, John E. Scott, Montreal, P.Q.; November 4, 1919, D. Charest, Hull, P.Q.; December 12, 1919, Queen's Hotel (R. D. Smith, prop.), Burlington, Ont.; December 12, 1919, Raymond Hotel (Wm. D. McKay, prop.), Burlington, Ont.; December 12,
1919,	Quick Lunch (Wm. Sunderland, prop.), Burlington, Ont.; March 5, 1920, John Jessop, Toronto, Ont.; March 13, 1920, A. B. Shewell, Cataraqui, Ont.; March 27,
1920,	W. R. Marchand, Kingston, Ont.; March 27, 1920, Provision Meat Market, Montreal, Que.; April 13, 1920, I. D. La-briche, Montreal, P.Q.; April 16, 1920, D. A. McDonald, Sydney, N.S., three cases pending.
5.	$420.
6.	None of the convicted parties were licensed. Only manufacturers and importers hold license.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is the Auditor General's Annual Report now published in both English and French?
2.	If not. since when, and why?
3.	Is it true that titles only in said report are translated in French?
4.	If so, why, and since when?


Sir Henry DRAYTON:: 1.	The Auditor General's Report is published in English, with titles, indices and all correspondence printed in both English and French.
2.	Since 1917. At the suggestion of the Editorial Committee on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament. - The amalgamation was recommended in the interest of economy, as under the previous system there was so much duplication and so much delay in the preparation and distribution of the French reports.
3.	Answere'd by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 2.


FRENCH WINE IMPORTATIONS.
Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What was the total importation of wines into Canada from France for the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919, of non-sparkling wine; of sparkling wine; total amount of
gallons;	and total	value ?		
Hon.	Mr. BURRELL:			
	Wines,		Wines,	
Fiscal.	Non-Sparkling.	Sparkling.	Year.	Gals.	Value.	Gals.	Value.1913 ..	.. 244,340	$241,65.6	134,321	$758,5201914 ..	. . 238,444	216,899	116,893	715,8491915 ..	. . 183,578	160,382	54,2'45	340,6971916 ..	. . 95,945	73,8-08	16,353'	92,8411917 ..	. . 7 3', 3 81	79,447	17,355	83,7541918 ..	.. 43,562	59,311	16,393	81,1381919 ..	. . 14,056	16,392	5,286	24,280GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE CONTRACTS.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Has the Government signed, in 1911, a contract for telephone connections with the Bell Telephone Company?
2.	During the same year, or since, has the Government refused to sign a similar contract with the Quebec-Orleans system?
3.	Is it true that certain local agents of the Government telephone, at the Island of Orleans, refuse the connections to the Quebec-Orleans system?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to stop that state of affairs and sign with the Quebec-Orleans system a contract which said line is claiming for many years?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yea.
2.	No. On 27th June, 1911, permission was given to Mr. J. M. Turcotte to make connection with the offices on the Government line for the operation of local exchanges at all of the parishes on Orleans Island excepting the parish of St. Petronille where there was a local exchange established, but on condition that he equip his



line with apparatus similar to that in use on the Government line.
3 and 4. The Government telephone agents are not expected to operate Mr. Turcotte's switchboards. Connections are by these agents made solely with the Government line and there has been no reported instance of refusal to perform this service, therefore it is not anticipated that any change will be made.


SIR WILLIAM MACKENZIE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. CASGEAIN:
1.	Was Sir William MacKenzie's private car included in the rolling stock of the Canadian Northern railway taken over by the Government?
2.	What office does Sir William MacKenzie hold in connection with the National Railways administration ?
3.	Does he retain from the Government running rights with said car for himself, his lobbyists and solicitors at the present time?
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Sir William MacKenzie holds no office of any kind and has no connection in any way with the operation or administration of the Canadian National railways. As expresident of the Canadian Northern railway he is allowed the transportation that all railways extend to ex-presidents of railways and which is in accordance with the Bailway Act.
3.	First part of question answered by No. 2. No special privileges are granted to any one.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS OEDEES FOE EETUENS.

Mr. PAEDEE:: 1.	What institutions are at present under the jurisdiction and management of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?
2.	What number of patients are there in each institution?
3.	What number of employees are there in each institution?
4.	What is the cost per year of each institution?


Mr. TOBIN:: In the financial statement issued by the Government the difference between the total debt and net debt is referred to as assets. What do these assets consist of?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many persons are employed in the province of Quebec in connection with the work of the Soldtiers' Settlement Board?
2.	What are their names and post office addresses?
3.	What salary or remuneration is each one drawing?
4.	Are any of these employees aJllotted to
certain constituencies?	t
5.	If so, what persons are allotted to the various constituencies, and to what constituencies?
	"



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. CARDIN:: For the production of copies of all correspondence, reports and documents exchanged between the Government and those in charge of the shipyard at Sorel, or any other person, in relation to the payment of a bonus to the employees of said shipyard, and the interruption or cessation of same.


Mr. ROBB:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Government or any member thereof and the Canadian Press, Limited, and the Canadian Associated Press, with regard to the establishment of an Imperial news service.


Mr. MACNUTT:: For a copy of all correspondence between the (Minister of Marine and the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, and the Mayor and City Council of Vancouver, and Sherman-also all correspondence between Minister of Marine or Deputy Minister of Marine and the Minister of Justice or Deputy Minister of Justice-regarding the claim for damages for cancellation of lease of Heatley Ave. Wharf, Vancouver, BC.; also a return showing: (a) amount of rents paid by said Sherman, (to) amount of actual expenditure by said Sherman in improvements of said wharf, (c) copy of Quit Claim alleged to have been given to city by Dominion Government and copies of all letters and correspondence relating thereto; also ail letters, documents, accounts pertaining thereto.


Joseph Archambault: For a return showing the total quantity in gallons of spirituous liquors imported in Canada during the years 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919 ; and also showing the value in money of the said imports during the same years.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. N. W. Eowell (Minister of Health), it was ordered that the House do to-morrow resolve itself into Committee of the 'Whole to consider a resolution respecting the proposed amendment of the Canada Shipping Act in reference to sick and distressed mariners.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. P. MOLLOY (Provencher):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister when I may expect some information in regard to the notice of motion for production of papers which has been standing in my name on the Order Paper since March 23?


George Green Foster: I will inform
my hon. friend the next time the motion is read.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I understand there are no more private members' days. There are standing in my name, under notices of motions, resolutions num-

bers 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. I should like to move these resolutions as motions for production of papers.


George Green Foster: If my hon. friend will permit me, to-morrow we shall take up the unopposed motions right through the list.



ADMISSION OF STRANGERS TO THE SIDE LOBBIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is your intention to lift the quarantine which exists on the lobbies of the House of Commons, or if this quarantine is going to continue much longer? At present a senator or a newspaper man or any other person cannot come to us in the lobbies; we have to trot around the building in order to find him, and this is a great inconvenience. I thought this measure was taken at first in order to allow the members and the various officers to settle down. As the process of settling down seems to be pretty well completed, may I ask when the quarantine is going to be lifted?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I presume the hon. member has reference to the rule that has obtained that only members of Parliament will be admitted to the lobbies on the two sides of the chamber?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule will be reversed just so soon as the House so determines. Some time ago I submitted the matter to the House, and it was the unanimous opinion of the House on that occasion that the rule should exist. The moment the House shall determine otherwise, I shall have pleasure in obeying its instructions. Until then, the rule will remain in force.



OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (Minister of Health) for the second reading of Bill No. 20, to amend the Opium and Drug Act.
Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: On Friday evening when this Order was called, I gave to the House certain amendments which I intended to incorporate in the Bill when the House went into committee, and it is not my intention this afternoon to discuss the Bill at length on the second reading. When the resolution upon which the Bill is founded, was before the House, I outlined the steps which led up to an agreement upon the terms of the International Opium 1041
Convention and the proceedings which had been taken since 1912 to secure the assent of the Powers to its terms and its final ratification. It is not needful that I should repeat that history this afternoon.
I shall, therefore, limit my observations to pointing out the importance and the necessity of the proposed legislation and to a few words with reference to its general character in an endeavour to facilitate the consideration of the matter in Committee of the Whole House.
I may say that the Bill is necessary for two purposes, one to carry out the obligations we have assumed under the International Opium Convention, and the other in the interest of public health and the welfare of the people. The first legislation in Canada in fconnection with the prohibition of the importation of opium was the Act of 1908 introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), then Minister of Labour. That legislation grew out of an investigation carried on by the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) when Deputy Minister of Labour, into certain anti-Asiatic riots in the city of Vancouver, which disclosed the extent to which the manufacture and sale of opium were being carried on in the Dominion of Canada. One of the effects of that legislation was greatly to decrease the importation of opium into Canada, and I shall give the House in a few minutes some statistics which are most interesting as indicating the effects of that legislation.
Following that was the Act of 1911, which went very much further than the Act of 1908. The Act of 1911 followed what was known as the Shanghai Conference, and was intended to give effect to some of the important decisions of that conference. It was introduced and carried through the House by the present leader of the Opposition, then the Minister of Labour. That legislation continued on the statute books unaltered until last year, when a Bill was passed through the House which provided for licensing import into Canada and prohibiting import except under license. That is the condition of the legislation at the present time.
In reference to the character of the traffic itself, it is not necessary that I should speak. The Act of 1908 dealt only with opium. The Act of 1911 went further and dealt with certain derivates of opium-morphine, heroin and codeine as well as with cocaine. At the time of the conference in Shanghai, it was deemed essential to the successful control of these habit-forming
1630	,

drugs that cocaine should be dealt with as well as morphine, heroin and codeine. The members of the House are aware that morphine and codeine are derivates of opium. Heroin, I believe, is a derivative of morphine, so they are all derived from opium, except cocaine, the morphine 'being the most important and valuable of them all. The morphine content of opium is about 10 per cent. I am sure the House will be interested in the importation figures. Starting in the year 1900 with an importation of 56,630 lbs. of opium gum crude, the amount went up to 81,302 lbs. the next year, and then went up and down until in the year 1908 the amount imported was 88,013 lbs. Following the legislation of 1908, the importation in the next year came down to 41,638 lbs. Then it dropped to 3,000 pounds. The figures are as follows: 1910, 3,576 lbs.;	1911,	6,418	lbs.;	1912,	5,017	lbs.;1913, 5,117	lbs.;	1914,	4,436	lbs.;	1915,	7,243lbs.; 1916,	1,741	lbs.	Then	it takes a	sudden jump	to 15,423 lbs. in	1917;	12,471	lbs.
in 1918, and 34,263 lbs. in 1919.
In the year 1918 a very Stringent law was passed in the United States. What is known as the Harrison Act was passed in 1914. That Act was amended in 1918 and made much more stringent. The United States Government took almost complete control of the traffic in these drugs by reason of that legislation and the regulations passed thereunder. One of the results appears to have been that those interested in the trade imported these drugs into Canada, and then by smuggling gained access to the American market. In fact that- was complained of by a committee appointed by the United States Government to investigate the matter. In Canada last session the licensing system was introduced, first by Order in Council to meet the situation, and subsequently confirmed by legislation. While the Order in Council was in force and before the Department of Health was organized, the licensing system was1 carried on by the Department of Trade and Commerce. Subsequently, and since the department was organized, It has been carried on by the Department of Health, with this very interesting result: The importation of 34,263 pounds of opium in 1919 dropped to 13,626 pounds in 1920; that is for the fiscal year ending March 31. The importation of cocaine, which in 1919 amounted to 12,333 ounces, dropped to 6,968 ounces in 1920, showing the great decrease in the importation of these drugs under the Order in Council and the legislation passed last session.
I am sure the House would be interested in a comparison of the importations during the ten months ending March 31, 1919, of unrestricted importation, except for the limitation that the drugs were to be used for medicinal purposes, with the ten months ending March 31, 1920, during which time the importation was under Government license. For the ten months ending March 31, 1919, the importation was 32,247 lbs., as compared with 7,995 lbs. for the ten months ending March 31, 1920, or a diminution of 24,252 pounds. Cocaine, for the same periods, dropped from 11,770 ounces to 5,250 ounces, and morphine from 25,677 ounces to 19,938 ounces.


Jacques Bureau: The opium figures are in pounds, and cocaine and morphine in ounces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. These figures will indicate to the House how great a reduction has been made in the past nine months. I think I should say to the House that I do not for one moment assume, and the department does not assume, that the great increase in the importation of opium, morphine and cocaine into Canada, which reached its high water mark in 1919 indicates that there was anything like a corresponding increase in the consumption of these drugs in Canada. The evidence we have would lead us to believe/ corresponding with the information which the American authorities have gathered, that by reason of the very stringent regulations adopted in the United States, those who are interested in getting the high prices which they could get for these drugs in the United States, but who were not able to import them through the regular channels, imported them through Canada. We had no limitation on import except a declaration that the drugs were required for medicinal purposes, and after once getting these drugs into Canada they succeeded in getting them into the American market. As to the figures I have given, it is anticipated that the results will be better as the months go by, because in the early days of the Government licensing system it took some time to get the system in thorough working order and to discover the bona fide importers as distinguished from the importers who were simply bringing these drugs, in for the purpose of getting them across the border into the United States.


Mr. BELAND:: Is the Department of Health in a position to say whether there has been a large amount of these drugs smuggled into Canada from the United
[Mr. Rowell.1

States. I understand it is rather an easy matter to smuggle through the border large quantities of morphine and cocaine.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sure that hon.
members -will realize that it is with gTeat difficulty that smuggling of these drugs is stopped, because they are high-priced and are carried in small bulk. But our information would not lead us to think that there had been as large quantities of these drugs smuggled into Canada from the United States as from the United States into Canada, for the reason that up to the passing of the legislation of last session the United States had in operation a stricter law than ours and were able better to trace and follow up men who were violating the law than we were. Under the legislation of last session no man can import any of these drugs into Canada without obtaining a license to do so. In that license he must declare that the drugs are required only for medicinal purposes, and he must undertake to account for the disposition of the entire quantity. I may add that the depart ment does call upon every licensee to account for the manner in which he has disposed of these drugs, and by following up the information thus secured the department is able to check up that which is used for legitimate purposes and to trace that which is being used for illegitimate purposes or which is being disposed of to be smuggled into the United States. Better results are being secured every day in connection with this work, and with the legislation now before the House it is confidently anticipated that there will be a still greater improvement in enforcement of the law. The legislation of 1911 covers these drugs, and section five of the Act of that year provides that they shall not be sold except upon a doctor's prescription. It is not necessary this afternoon that I should enter Into a discussion of the effect of that section. There may be differences of opinion as to whether that section prohibited the sale of any preparations that contained any quantity of these drugs, or simply prohibited the sale of the drugs as such. I think that a fair interpretation of the Act of 1911 would be that it prohibited not only the drugs but preparations from them. Whatever may be the interpretation of the section, that matter is dealt with in the Bill now before the House. The important changes introduced into the legislation by the new Bill may be summarized briefly. First of all, in the definition of "drugs" itself, it is made perfectly clear that the prohibitions of the Act apply not only to the drug itself but to any preparations of it, subject to the exceptions provided in the Bill. Secondly, under the International Opium Convention, it is required-in order to limit the extent of this traffic as much as it is possible to do by legislation and regulation-that not only shall there be a limit to the purposes for which drugs may be imported, and for which they may be exported to other countries that have adopted regulations, but also that the ports of import or export shall be named so that it may be possible to check up what is coming in and going out; and it is also required that the packages which contain 'these drugs shall also be marked in such a way as to indicate their character. These are some of the requirements of the International Convention, and this legislation provides for such regulations.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: Will the
minister be good enough to giye us an explanation regarding the International Convention to which he has referred? Is it intended that there shall be an international regulation with regard to these narcotic drugs, and particularly with regard to opium?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This convention provides for international regulation, and this legislation is to enable the 'Government of Canada to carry out the obligation it has assumed under the International Convention. As my hon. friend was not here, perhaps I may give just a word of explanation with regard to that Convention, although I explained that aspect of the subject when the resolution was before the committee.
Following an international conference held in Shanghai in 1909 to consider steps to be taken either to prohibit or to limit the trade in opium, at which conference Canada was represented by the present leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mackenzie King), then Deputy Minister of Labour, it was decided to call an international convention with a view to securing an international agreement to limit and control the trade in opium and similar drugs. That convention was held at The Hague in 1912. The International Convention of which I now speak was agreed upon at The Hague in 1912, but up to the beginning of the war it had not been found possible to obtain the assent of all the nations that were interested in the production of opium or in the growth of the poppy, and it was not

deemed fair to prohibit the trade of those countries [DOT]which were engaged in it and which were willing to sign the agreement, so long as other countries also engaged in the traffic would not come in. What they desired to do was to stop the trade, and if only some of the countries eneaued in it were willing to stop it, while others continued, it simply meant that the business would be transferred from the countries which were willing to stop to those which were not. That is why the convention had not been .fully signed and put into effect prior to the war. Among the chief countries which did not come in and which were interested in the trade were Austria, Turkey, (Germany to some extent, and Greece also to a limited extent; and the Allied and Associated Powers at the Peace Conference incorporated a provision in the Treaty of Peace with each of these countries requiring their adherence to the International Opium Convention, and stipulating that when the Treaty of Peace was ratified and carried into effect it carried with it the ratification of the International Opium Convention. As the Treaty of Peace with Germany has gone into effect by deposit of ratifications in the month of January of the present year, this convention is now in effect with Tespect to the powers that were parties to that Treaty. I think that this statement covers the (question raised by the hon. member.


Mr. J. A. STEWART:: Is it true that practically all the powers had agreed to the convention of 1912 prior to its discussion at the Peace Conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sorry I cannot answer my hon. friend this afternoon as I have not my papers in connection with the earlier proceedings.


John Alexander Stewart: Is it not a fact that the United States w.as the only power that had ratified the treaty.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend may be
correct in that but many had signed it and ( were only waiting a general agreement of the powers to ratify before ratifying. Great Britain, Canada and France were in that position. I think the powers interested were prepared to go on with the exception of the powers I have mentioned.


Alfred Thompson: Can the minister
advise the House as to whether Turkey will accept the provision in the Peace Treaty to which he has referred?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That involves a very
much larger question than the Opium Con-

vention. I imagine that finally a Treaty of Peace with Turkey will be concluded and this certainly will be in the Treaty; so that I think we may proceed on the assumption that Turkey will be bound by this, provision. I was going on to remark that representations have been made to the Government that we should not absolutely prohibit the sale of preparations containing a limited quantity of these drugs except upon a prescription by a medical doctor. The Government in the amendment which I read to the House Friday night is prepared to meet that view to the extent indicated in the amendment. I think there is nothing to be gained by discussing the general terms of the amendment at the present time. We can discuss the matter with greater advantage when the Bill goes into committee. Therefore I move the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1, subsection 1-definition of " drug " :
Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the object of
striking out the words " imports, manufactures, sells, offers,for sale, has in his possession, or"? Would it be possible for the minister to read a list of the drugs contained in the schedule?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The drugs contained in
the schedule are cocaine, and any salts or compound's thereof; morphine and any salts or compounds thereof, and opium and eucaine and any salts or compounds thereof. Under section 14 of the Act of 1911 provision was made for adding to the schedule by Order in Council any other drugs, alkaloids, derivatives or preparations of the drugs named in the schedule, and by an Order in Council passed during the early part of the present year the schedule was amended by adding to it, after the word " opium " the words " or its preparations or any opium alkaloids or derivatives or salts, or preparation of opium alkaloids or derivatives." The schedule as it now stands would be as I have read it with these words added.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Would the minister be in a position to state in a few words the effect of striking out these words referred to in subsection 2 of section 1 and also in subsection 3 of section 1.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Mr. EULER:: Will these changes have
any connection with the requests made by the druggists to the minister last week?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, that comes in a later section.
On section 1, subsection 4-prescriptions. Mr. BUREAU: I desire to supplement the question put by my hon. friend to the minister in regard to the new section proposed to be substituted for subsection (4) of section 5. I understand that the introduction of this section, which the minister gave notice of on Friday evening last, was the result of communications that were received from various parties iwhoi are interested in the Act. Now I find something here that to my judgment ought to be carefully considered. In the latter part of the proposed section it is provided that a druggist cannot, without the consent of a physician, sell any drug upon a prescription already given without incurring a penalty of $1,000 and not less than $500 and imprisonment. If I read the section correctly that is what it contemplates; it applies to:
Any druggist who, without the authority of the prescribing physician, veterinary surgeon, or dentist uses any prescription to sell any drug on more than 6ne occasion.
Cases might arise in which such a provision would not only cause great inconvenience but great hardship. Take for instance the case of a man who is undergoing treatment from a doctor. He gets a prescription from his medical attendant but the latter goes away for a time. The prescription is exhausted, and the patient cannot go to another physician who has not treated him to get the same prescription-the other physician does not know anything about the circumstances. Therefore the man goes to his druggist and says "I had on such a date a prescription from Dr. So-and-So. Would you kindly renew it?" The druggist agrees to do so, and in so doing performs what I would consider a service not only to the sick man but to the community. Yet under this section as I read i't he is liable to a fine of not less than $500.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The section in that respect does not change the law as it has been since 1911 and no particular hardship has arisen out of it, so far as I am aware. The object of this provision, of course, is to prevent abuse. A doctor gives a prescription on a particular occasion and, unless there is a limit, the druggist might go on
selling indefinitely, whether the patient needed the drug or. not.


Jacques Bureau: Notwithstanding that
such is the law I think it results in hardship and ought to be corrected. I quite appreciate the abuse that my hon. friend wants to reach; but the section could be so framed as to prevent that result and at the same time not impose hardship upon anybody. 'The section, as framed, is made general in its application. Why not limit its effect, or have the provision so worded that a prescription given by a medical man Ito ia patient in -a particular case may 'be renewed without exposing the druggist to this heavy penalty? My hon. friend states that no hardship has resulted from the operation of the law; but we know that drug stores these days and other places are filled with fellows trying to induce people to break the law in order to have a chance to lay a complaint against them and have them fined.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The difficulty is the one I have already mentioned: The change proposed would make possible the refilling of the prescription as frequently as a man might apply for it; and one knows how persistent is the Tequest for refilling prescriptions by men who are at all addicted to the use of these drugs. I am also under the impression-although in this I speak subject to correction-that most of the provincial Acts Tegulating the practice of pharmacy contain similar provisions; they require that these drugs shall be sold under certain restricted conditions, and I think that when a prescription is required it can only be used once.


Jacques Bureau: I have no objection to the definition as laid down in 'the interpretation clause but this provision makes the law applicable to all drugs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it only deals with those habit-forming drugs which contain opium, morphine, heroin, and so forth. The definition clause reads as follows:
"Drug" means and includes any substance (whether alone or in conjunction with any other substance) mentioned in the schedule to this Act or which may be added to such schedule under the authority of this Act.
Now drugs can only be added to the schedule under the authority of the Act in case they are of a character I have already mentioned, viz:-that they are derivatives or alkaloids of those particular drugs referred to in the schedule, that is under section 14 of the Act of 1911.


Mr. MAHAEG:: I a.m not quite clear as to 'what is meant. I would like to ask the minister what is the meaning of the proposed new section 4. It reads that:
Any person who deals in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person-
And so on. Does that apply to the ordinary drugs that are in daily use-for example in the practice of a veterinary-such [DOT]as carbolic acid, tincture of iron, sulphate of iron, and so on, things that are commonly used as disinfectants in case of sickness? Would it be an infraction of the law for these to be sold by a druggist for any particular purpoise?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. My hon. friend evidently did not hear the explanation I gave to my hon. friend from Three Rivers. This could only apply to the drugs referred to in the schedule-that is the group of habit-forming drugs such as opium, heroin, codeine, cocaine, and so forth. The Act is limited to drugs containing any of these preparations.


William Daum Euler: According to -this clause the physicians are themselves permitted to sell these drugs direct. Is that correct?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Is there any restriction whatever upon the physician? Does the physician himself have-to keep a record of the sales which he makes of these habitforming drugs?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


William Daum Euler: Is there no check whatever upon the physician?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He is not compelled to keep a record of sales, but he is prohibited from prescribing except for the purposes mentioned in the Act. But when we come to another section of the Bill I intend to introduce an amendment requiring the physician to supply to the department any information which the department may require in regard to the use or sale of any of these drugs. '


Mr. CROTHERS:: What is the proposed amendment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is set out in Hansard of Friday: It reads:
(4) Section 5, subsection 1, of the said Act is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" Any person who deals in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person other than a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on business in a bona fide drug store, and any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug except upon a written order or prescription signed by a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or who, without the authority of the prescribing physician, veterinary surgeon, or dentist, uses any prescription to sell any drug on more than one occasion, shall be guilty of a criminal offence and shall he liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs and not less than five hundred dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment."
That is the clause to which my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) has referred.


Jacques Bureau: It is provided by this Bill that any retailer or manufacturer of drugs may sell to a practising physician any of these drugs. The seller has to keep a record of what he buys and of what he sells, but the doctor may obtain these drugs and dispense them to1 whomever he sees fit, without keeping any record. If any abuse occurs, there is no provision for suspending his license as practising physician or for the imposition of any other penalty. My opinion is that there ought to be some check on the physician-even if that view should bring down the thunders of the medical profession.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I suggest that we leave the discussion of that until we come to (5-A), in which'the question of keeping records is dealt with.


Jacques Bureau: 'This is a prohibitive
clause; if we are going to prohibit the handling of drugs by anybody, we ought to enumerate here all those who will be subject to that restriction.


John Archibald Maharg: Does this mean that the authority of the prescribing physician must be obtained in every case before the druggist may refill a prescription?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: Must the authority be
written, or may it be verbal? Can it be obtained by telephone, for instance?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This law as it stood since 1911 requires that the prescription shall be a written one.


John Archibald Maharg: For refilling?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The original prescription must be written; then it is provided that the prescription shall not be filled more than once.


John Archibald Maharg: It will work a great hardship in the western country, where we sometimes have to depend on physicians who reside from thirty to sixty miles away, if that restriction is imposed.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: Suppose I had
a prescription filled in Ottawa and then travelled to my home in Saskatchewan: I might want to have that prescription refilled when I got home. Why should I not be able to do so?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My interpretation of that section is that the physician may write a prescription, and that subsequently, if the patient intends to leave for another part of the country, the physician may give the patient written authority for the refilling of the prescription as many times as the patient shall require. The words " without the authority of the prescribing physician" are used in the clause, and further down it is provided that the druggist shall not fill the prescription more than once. You must read also with that last provision the phrase " without the authority of the prescribing physician." I do not consider this clause as meaning that the physician shall have to write the prescription out every time that the bottle has to be refilled. It means that-every time the druggist refills a prescription he shall be authorized to do so by the prescribing physician.


Jacques Bureau: But if he is away?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend asks, "If he is away." The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) wants to know what will happen if he leaves his home, where he had obtained a prescription, and comes to Ottawa. Well, if he is a sick man he will be as particular about his health and about taking the prescription to Ottawa as he is about
taking along with him the clothes he needs. If he comes tp live in Ottawa in winter, he will bring some winter clothing with him. If he leaves his home as a sick man and knows that he will require some drugs when he is in the capital city, he will certainly take heed and go to his physician before he leaves home in order to procure the necessary authority for the druggist in Ottawa to fill the prescription. It seems elementary that a man has as much concern about his health as he has about his clothing in cold or warm weather. If you read the clause from the first line to the last, you will see that it is not necessary, as I take it, for the physician each time to write down a prescription; it is only essential for the druggist to have from the prescribing physician the necessary authority to refill the prescription.


John Flaws Reid: Has it not been a long standing practice for people to have prescriptions filled several times, without having new ones made out by the physician?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it has; but it
should not be so, and I will tell my hon. friend why. The drugs that are referred to in this clause are the drugs included in the schedule which are poisonous, deleterious, dangerous drugs. Let me give an illustration. My hon. friend will get a prescription for a case of bronchitis and this prescription will very likely contain some narcotic. He will have a four ounce bottle filled on this prescription; he will leave the prescription with the druggist, take the bottle home and drink the contents; and when the bottle is empty, instead of being dead, he will be better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Strange.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He will have entirely recovered; but his neighbour who has some kind of a disease of the chest and who does not know anything about it pays a visit to my hon. friend and says: "1 am coughing very badly." My hon. friend replies: "Oh, here is my bottle; go to the druggist he will fill it; you need not go to a doctor." His friend goes to the druggist; gets the narcotic, drinks it and dies, because the drug that has been prescribed for my hon. friend is not intended for his neighbour. It is to prevent such abuses taking place and such dangerous risks being taken by people who do not consult a proper medical authority, that this clause has been framed.


John Flaws Reid: My hon. friend surely does not think for a minute that I am as little concerned about my health as

about my old suit of clothes. When I go to a physician and that physician prescribes a prescription for me, that prescription is mine; and if I choose to use that prescription several times, that should be my business. I certainly object to this provision that prevents a patient from having a prescription refilled without going back to his physician every time he wants the prescription refilled. I think that is an injustice and an imposition.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In such a case, there is
a remedy for the situation. Supposing my hon. friend has contracted a chronic disease. He gets a prescription from his doctor, and he may easily at the same time obtain from his doctor authority to have it refilled as many times as he likes. But he must have that authority, and if he has an acute disease, my hon. friend is going to have almost a daily call from his physician.


Mt. MANION:: I do not know the custom in other parts of Canada; but in most cities in Ontario, the custom in regard to prescriptions is that if a doctor gives a prescription which contains no harmful drug, the druggist will fill it as many times as the patient requires without the necessity of the patient obtaining a new prescription from the doctor, and I presume that is also the custom in the other provinces of Canada. But where a prescription contains drugs such as morphine or opium or cocaine or chloral, which may be harmful, the druggist would refuse to refill the prescription without an order from the doctor, and he would be quite right in so doing. As regards a question of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) regarding the authorization of refilling prescriptions, any druggist in the country, once he knows that he is dealing with a responsible doctor, would accept a telephone order from the doctor to refill a prescription and let the doctor send the written prescription by mail. As regards the case he mentions of a man ten or thirty miles away from a doctor,, the man would get a prescription from the doctor, and when the man wanted it refilled, and the doctor thought it was proper to have it refilled, the doctor could easily telephone the necessary authorization to the druggist, and then the doctor could send the written authorization by mail.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing the doctor is
overseas and not within reach.


Robert James Manion: Then the patient would have to consult another doctor. If the pre-

scription did not contain harmful drugs, there would be no difficulty about having it refilled.


John Archibald Maharg: It seems rather strange that on the one hand you will permit prescriptions being sold containing a certain quantity of the harmful drugs which the hon. member mentions, and yet, on the other hand, you cannot get a prescription refilled even if it does not contain any of these drugs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is mistaken. There is nothing to prevent a prescription being refilled as often as you like unless it contains some of these drugs. This Act is absolutely limited to these particular drugs and preparations containing them; it does not deal with any other drugs at all.


John Archibald Maharg: I cannot read that into this clause.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the description of the "drug" is referred to in the schedule.


John Archibald Maharg: I understand that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The schedule in the Act of 1911 is absolutely limited to these drugs. There is no power to add to the schedule drugs of a different character.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite understand that, but this clause deals with prescriptions specifically, not with drugs.


Jacques Bureau: With any drugs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the word "drug" in this Act, Wherever it applies, means drug as defined in the schedule, and that is the object of having an interpretation clause. If my hon. friend will turn to the interpretation clause, he will see that subclause (a) says that the word "drug," wherever used in this Act, is limited by the definition of "drug" contained in the interpretation clause.


Jacques Bureau: The term "any drug" seems to extend the meaning beyond the interpretation clause.


Mr. ANDERSON:: A restriction of this nature is absolutely essential to dangerous drugs, because a patient in getting a prescription does not know what it contains. The doctor does not tell him what is in that prescription. The patient may not consult the doctor again for a considerable time, and if he is having a prescription refilled, he may' be injuring his health. I have known certain cases of that kind. For

instance, a man got a prescription containing a considerable quantity of aconite for some acute trouble. The doctor met him on the road .some months afterwards, and the man stopped him and asked how much longer he should go on taking the prescription, telling the doctor that he had been taking it ever since. It is a wonder the man was still alive. He did not realize the dangerous character of the drug, so that it is quite evident that a restriction of this kind is .absolutely essential in -connection with the dangerous drugs mentioned in the schedule in this Act. The general public are not cognizant of the drugs which they are taking, and it is not the place of a doctor to tell them exactly what they are taking, because even if he did, they would not know anything about it anyway.


Jacques Bureau: And they might not come back for a new prescription.


Robert King Anderson: No competent druggist would refill a prescription containing drugs that were deleterious to human life.


John Archibald Maharg: I think the minister could get over the difficulty by limiting the number of drugs in respect of which the prescription can only be filled once. The minister was good enough to meet the wishes of the druggists, and I think the people are just as worthy of consideration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not see how you *could define what should be in a prescription, and what should not, before it can be refilled. I woud draw my hon. friend's attention to the provincial legislation on this question. I do not know what the law is in Saskatchewan, but these drugs are so thoroughly recognized throughout the country as being poisonous and dangerous to health that I think every provincial legislature, with the possible exception of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, has legislated with reference to some or all of these drugs. I have before me the Ontario Act. It has since been amended. I have not the amendment before me, but the amendment extends the scope of the provisions dealing with these particular drugs. The Ontario Act absolutely prohibits a druggist from filling more than once a prescription containing any admixture of cocaine or eucaine. It goes further and says: "No copy thereof shall be taken by or given to any person by the person who has the custody or control thereof." That was no doubt to meet the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Beland).


John Archibald Maharg: Does the Ontario Act deal only with the two drugs mentioned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That particular section deals with only these two drugs, but my recollection is that the Act was amended in 1917 to cover opium and other drugs. I speak subject to correction because I have not the amendment before me.


John Alexander Stewart: The law now provides that the prescription of the physician must be in writing. The proposed amendment provides that with the consent of the prescribing physician the prescription may be filled more than once. The hon. member (Mr. Manion) has stated in a general way that in general practice prescriptions are filled more than once without anything in the shape of formal consent on the part of the attending physician. It is clearly intended under this amendment that the prescription should be filled more than once, and it would surely be wise for the section to state specifically how the authority to refill is to be given. Otherwise, we shall only be providing for litigation. The discussion so far has made it perfectly clear that no one seems to know exactly in what form consent is to be given to refill prescriptions. I think some provision should be made by which it would be possible to fill a prescription more than once without having the doctor's consent in writing, because in many cases it would be impossible to get it when it was required.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have now before me the Ontario Act as amended, and I find that as I suggested, that it is broader in its scope. It provides that:
(1)	No person or incorporated company shall sell by retail, furnish or dispose of alkaloid cocaine or its salts, or alpha or beta eucaine 'or their salts, or any admixture of cocaine or eucaine, or heroin, or codeine, or morphine or its salts, or any admixture thereof, or opium, including crude opium, powdered opium, or opium prepared or in course of preparation for smoking, except upon the written prescription of a legally qualified medical practitioner personally signed by him, which shall be retained -by the person who sells, furnishes or disposes of the same, and a record of the prescription shall be kept in a book which shall contain the name of the physician, the number of the prescription, the quantity sold, the name of the person for whom prescribed or supplied, and the date of the sale.
(2)	The prescription shall not be filled more than once and no copy thereof shall be taken by or given to any person by. the person who has the custody or control thereof.
The Ontario Act is, in its detailed statement as to "personally signed" and so on, even more sweeping than our legislation.


Jacques Bureau: The Ontario Act specifically enumerates the drugs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: These are the drugs enumerated in the schedule to this Bill.


Jacques Bureau: The word "any" is what I object to.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to saying "any drug specified in this Act," though that is the effect of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: That would be better, to my mind.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite prepared to7 do that, but I think my hon. friend overlooks the serious character of these drugs; these drugs are looked upon, and in fact are so deleterious to health, if taken in excess, that the greatest precautions are thrown around their prescription and administration. They do not cure: they allay pain. They create conditions that will tend to a cure under certain definite conditions depending on the health of the individual to whom they are administered. They do not possess any curative properties in themselves. They are hypnotic in their influence. I am quite prepared to say "any drug covered by this Act."


Mr. PEDLOW:: Would it not be wise to make provision in the Bill that ordinary patent medicines containing a small proportion of these drugs shall be exempt under the Act? I understand that in the United States there is a law known as the Harrison Law, under which preparations and remedies which do not contain more than 2 grains of opium, or more than i grain morphine, or more than i grain heroin, or more than 1 grain codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them, in a fluid ounce, are exempt. I think some such provision should be made in this Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will read Friday's Hansard he will find that I have given notice of an amendment to cover that point. We will come to it on a later section.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think the subject matter of this Bill is so technical that it would be better to refer it to a special committee where all parties concerned could have an opportunity of being heard. Any member of this House who is not a druggist or a manufacturing chemist or a member of the medical profession must find it difficult to follow the ideas that were in the minds of those who framed this Bill. It seems to me that it is designed particularly to prevent

druggists from selling their regular lines of patent medicines containing a small proportion of drugs of this kind. We all know that the medical profession is an admirable one, but the members of it are only human like the rest of us. I need only refer to what has happened in connection with the administration of the prohibition law in the province of Ontario during the last twelve months. Unlike Caesar's wife,
. the physicians are not above suspicion; and they are liable-


Mr. BLAKE:: I must ask the hon. member'to substantiate his accusation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. gentleman
should read the press. One member of the profession is reported to have issued as many as 1,200 prescriptions in a month, and I am sure the minister will himself admit that this number of prescriptions, issued in so short a time, is at least sufficient to create suspicion.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is a much better judge on that point that I.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I have certain letters
which have been written with regard to this legislation, and one communication from a druggist practising in the town of Chesley, Ontario, I should like very much to read to the committee, because it is pertinent to the subject under consideration. This letter reads:
Dear Sir,-Were the public at large to realize fully the effect of the provisions of the Opium and Drug Act now before the House, a storm of protest and disapproval would undoubtedly be raised for its immediate repeal.
Unquestionably no such radical enactment as this Act provides for would ever be conceived without the efforts of sinister and designing influences who stand to profit thereby. Personally I have only realized its significance during the last few days, and I am sure that a measure containing such arbitrary legislation will not knowingly receive your support in the House. In the past practically all the better known and reliable cough medicines have contained small quantities of sedataive drugs, certainly most valuable where their helpful use is indicated. Today practically every physician buys his cough mixtures in bulk (I know this to be a fact because I supply them), and these compounds contain just the same narcotic drugs, compounded in just the same manner as do the reliable so-called patent medicine lines. The difference is just this, the patient goes to the drug store and invests 25c. for his treatment instead of going to the medical man and paying $1.00 for a like article. This certainly would bring much grist to the medical man, but is it in the interests of the masses of the people? Certainly not.
Take another line of medicines which have and do serve a most valuable purpose, i.e., the wild strawberry compounds. I can well imagine the feelings of the citizen living in rural

sections who finds it expedient to have a hottle of the above on hand. An attack of dysentery would mean under the present provisions of the Act that the individual would have to drive to town to have his physician prescribe or administer a dose of an astringent medicine, and then back again in case the first dose was not effective. All effective dysentery remedies contain proper dosages of opium, and whose use in this connection cannot possibly be abused.
The amendments proposed to the Act are such as will overcome the above and similar injustices and still effectively protect the public from the indiscriminate use of narcotic drugs. These amendments provide for the quantity of said drugs to be contained in a given quantity of the medicine. I trust that you are giving careful consideration to this Act and will support proper amendments which will safeguard the public and prevent an injustice to both the public and the druggists, whose Joint interests are so vitally involved.


Matthew Robert Blake: By whom is that letter written, and to whom is it addressed?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The letter I have just read is addressed to R. E. Truax, M.P., and it is signed by S. R. Davey, Phm. B. I do not know what these initials* stand for. I have another letter signed by some druggists of Renfrew, Ont. I shall not read the letter, but the druggists are: W. B. Clark, W. A. Cameron, D. J. Ritza, and Fraser and Smart.
I also have a similar communication, written on stationery of Henry K. Wampole and Company, and bearing the name of a prominent member of Parliament from the county of Lanark.
I think that a Bill of this kind, Mr. Chairman, could be much more effectively dealt with by a special committee, and I now therefore move that this Bill be referred to a special committee of the House in order that opportunity may be given to all parties interested to be heard and to give fud expression to their views upon the subject.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member's
motion is not in order. It is impossible for the comittee of the House to refer a Bill to a special committee. That motion must be made by the House itself.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I trust that at the proper time I shall have an opportunity of making this motion.


Mr. GLASS:: I have received several letters along the same lines as the letter which the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) has read to the committee. A denudation of members met a large gathering of druggists here two or three weeks ago, and I believe that the objections that were urged by those druggists at the time were properly laid before the minister, and it is as a result of the representations that they then made that these amendments are now before the House. As
I understand these amendments, they cover all the ground asked for by the druggists. What the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has just suggested is simply repeating what was urged'in hundreds of letters and telegrams sent to the House, that our Act should be amended to embody the provisions of the Harrison Act in operation in the United States. I must express my sympathy with the hon. member for Renfrew to this extent, that, due possibly to a lack of technical knowledge of matters of this kind, we are very apt to pass legislation and afterwards discover that we have made mistakes. And to some extent the amendments which we are asked to make today are due to the fact that the legislation we passed last year was not wisely considered nor fully understood. The tendency of the House is to assume too much an attitude of paternalism, which tends to make the people restless; and it is unfortunate that the House should pass legislation only to be repealed and re-enacted in some other form	the year	following.
I think it would be better to refer the consideration of these subjects to a committee which understands them rather than that we should arrive at conclusions in Com-.mittee of the Whole without a proper knowledge by the members of the subject undediscussion. But in view of the full representations that were made and in view of the fact that the minister has tried to meet these representations, possibly all the objections the druggists have had are fully covered by the amendments here.


Matthew Robert Blake: This House has listened to many speeches from the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr Pedlow) but I doubt if it has ever listened to one quite so absurd and illogical as that with which he has just favoured us. He takes to task a learned profession which he seems to be very little conversant with and he says that very few members of the medical profession are trustworthy. Let me say to the my hon. friend that I am satisfied- that the medical profession can set up a cleaner record than his craft the retail clothiers, who have certainly not done anything to quiet the unrest which prevails throughout the country. He says that one member of the medical profession issued 1,200 prescriptions for liquor in a month. During the influenza epidemic I was making some fifty visits a day and I prescribed whiskey for every one of my patients. If you will figure that up you will see what it amounts to in a month. I do not know whether I prescribed 1,200 in a month or not but I pretty nearly

did anyway. I never knew a patient who took half a tumbler of whiskey, went to bed and stayed there, who did not get better of influenza. If the doctors had not prescribed whiskey, there are a great many people now roaming around who would be sleeping in the churchyard. If the whole medical profession appreciated the value of whiskey in certain cases, especially influenza, the results would be much more satisfactory. There is no comparison between the results obtained by those who treated influenza with whiskey and the results obtained by those temperance cranks who did not prescribe whiskey. Twelve hundred prescriptions a month during the epidemic were nothing out of the ordinary for a physician with a large practice to prescribe.
The prescribing of drugs such as this Bill deals with cannot be thrown wide open so that the person obtaining a prescription can have it repeated as many times as he wishes. In Winnipeg and other large centres we have many morphine and dope fiends and the only way in which we can hope to cure them is by cutting down the number of their prescriptions and reducing the quantity, and many have been cured in that way. If I were to write a prescription for a gramme of morphine and give to a person, and if that person could go to a druggist and have it filled as often as he wished, we might as well have no law whatever governing the sale of drugs. The small amount of two grains of morphine put in a cough medicine to be taken in eight doses is not going to do anybody any harm. People can get these patent medicines if they want them but when it comes to the prescription of morphine, cocaine, or any of the drugs that the schedule to this Bill contains, it is absolutely impossible to fling the door wide open. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) has spoken about farmers driving thirty-five or forty miles to town for medicine but you do not find these dope fiends out on the wide prairie. The people there live healthy lives and they have no need for drugs. It is only in the large centres of population that we find the dope fiends, and all they have to do is to go half a mile, or any short distance within the limits of the city, to get their prescription refilled. It is absolutely essential, if we hope to control the sale of drugs and help these people to get this habit out of their lives, to make it necessary that they must come for another prescription. It is not because the physician takes a mercenary view of this matter. I have only one dope fiend under my care. I 
do not know where she gets the money to buy the dope; she has never any to pay for the prescription and while I have given her six or seven doses, I am gradually bringing down the quantity. But, I have never got a penny for the prescription. ,1 think many other medical men have had the same experience. These poor people are generally extremely hard up, and they would be better without the drug. Unfortunately we have no institutions in Canada to which we can compel them to go and be cured. When they go into hospitals of their own free will the hospitals and the medical men are willing to treat them and they gradually reduce the quantity of the drug. The patients have nothing to do with administering the drug; it is given to them by the nurses and attendants and they finally are cured, and they can be cured if they set their minds to it and had sufficient determination. But it is absolutely hopeless to cure them if they are allowed to get a prescription refilled as many times as they wish. In some iAstances one prescription will serve a whole community because birds of a feather flock together, these people know each other, they congregate in districts, and one prescription may suffice to satisfy the whole lot if they can have it refilled constantly.


John Alexander Stewart: Reference has been made by the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) and also by the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) to the representations made by the retail druggists when they waited on the minister some few weeks ago. The suggestion to refer the Bill to a special committee so that these representations might be considered further was made by the hon. member for South Renfrew. I was privileged to be present and to take part in the interview with the minister on the 7th April. I am sure that the amendment as suggested by the President of the Privy Council, and contained in Hansard of Friday, substantially covers the request made by that deputation relative to the terms of the Bill as originally drawn, with the exception of some matters of detail which will be dealt with when the sections are reached. There will consequently be no necessity to refer the Bill to a special committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. member for South Renfrew.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say for the information of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) that before this deputation waited on the minister I

sent to the minister some communications received from the druggists and asked that they be given attention in connection with the Bill. I have understood from the minister that the particular matters referred to in these communications were those taken up by the deputation that waited on the Government and that the points to which special attention has been directed have been covered by the suggested amendments. If that be so, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by referring the Bill to a special committee at this stage. If on the contrary the minister cannot assure us that the representations made by the druggists have been covered in a satisfactory way, there is something in the suggestion and it should receive consideration.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not quite sure that we all have in our' minds the fact that the prohibitions and penalties referred to in this proposed amendment are confined to the drugs set forth in the schedule. You will notice that subsection 4, wbich is being amended, provides that the Governor in Council may add to this schedule of drugs. Take the definition of the word "dTug" in subsection (a) of section 1:
"Drug" means and includes any substance (whether alone or in conjunction with any other substance) mentioned in the schedule to this Act or which may be added to such schedule under the authority of this Act.
Subsection 4 of section 1 gives authority by Order in Council to add to this schedule "any preparation named or described in such regulation," in these words:
Provided, however, that the Governor in Council may by regulation to be published in the Canada Gazette extend and apply the provisions of the said paragraphs (e) and (f) to any preparation named or described in such regulation.
If this is adopted the Governor in Council can declare anything to be an injurious preparation and add it to the drugs mentioned in the schedule. This proposed amendment would apply to the additions. I am not quite sure whether all the members of the committee have that in their minds. There are one or two other things I desire to point out. Subclauses (e) and
(f)	contain a prohibition against persons having drugs in their possession no matter how they obtain them; even if they have bought them from a druggist on a prescription from a doctor. For example the wording of paragraph (e) of subsection (2) is:
Any person who.-
(e) has in his possession or manufactures, sells, gives away or distributes any drug without first obtaining a license from the minister.
Although the person may have got a prescription from a doctor, gone to a druggist and obtained the drug, if he has the drug in his possession he may be prosecuted and fined a minimum penalty of $500. Something must be done to remedy that; it was never intended that such a condition should exist.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Might I suggest that we first dispose of the amendments we are now cosidering? I shall be very glad when we come to subsection (5A)-which is the one referred to-to deal with the point raised but I think we should first make some progress with the amendments now under review.


John Archibald Maharg: I do not like delaying
the committee but I am not at all satisfied with the section with which we * are now dealing. The minister surely can get around this provision in some way, at least to the extent that is permitted in the case of ordinary patent medicines. I do not think such a modification could be considered as going too far, particularly as regards the veterinary profession. We get some epidemics among our stock very similar to those which affect human beings -for example influenza-quite often, and if it is necessary to hunt up a veterinary surgeon it will at times be very hard to find one. In the West there are very few veterinary surgeons. Even in our larger centres there would not be more than a couple of them, and they have to cover a territory extending for forty, fifty, or sixty miles. It surely must be unnecessary to have such a restriction in this clause with respect to medicine required for live stock.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the next section
which deals with the exceptions. The one I have moved-which is to repeal the old section 5 and substitute a new section 5, and which is set forth in Hansard of Friday-contains the prohibition against the sale without the prescription. It is the next section (5A) and the amendments I have proposed to this section which deal with the exceptions, that is the time, I submit, when we should deal with any modification or rather exception, if there is to be any, to the prohibition in this clause. Let us deal first with the general prohibition and then deal with the exceptions separately. The second amendment of which I gave notice Friday evening does exempt from the operation of this section,

prescriptions containing the limited amounts of these deleterious drugs which are mentioned in that subsection. In the case of medicines that do not contain more than' the limited amounts mentioned in the amendment a doctor's prescription is not required at all. That is expressly provided for. Medicines which contain these minimum amounts are exempted from this section entirely.


John Archibald Maharg: That refers to drugs; it does not make any exception in the case of physicians, veterinary surgeons, and dentists' prescriptions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It exempts the sale of
these drugs entirely from this clause. No medical prescription at all is required for those preparations containing the limited quantities of these drugs mentioned in the new amendment. They are wholly withdrawn from the operation of this clause.


John Archibald Maharg: I can quite understand
going that far, but that does not enable a party getting a prescription from a veterinary surgeon to go and have the prescription filled again.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot consent to
change that because of the serious consequences that might ensue from the distribution of these poinsonous and very deleterious drugs. Such a restriction has been found necessary in other countries. For example the United States is stricter than we are in some respects at least in connection with this law. They require registration by everybody who sells. This section has been the law for nine years and we are not now proposing anything new in this respect. I know it to be the law also in Ontario under provincial legislation, and I believe the same is in operation in a number of other provinces-a law which the provinces have enacted on their own initiative in order to protect the public from the noxious drugs.


John Alexander Stewart: The matter of the form in which the consent of the prescribing physician is to be signified is not dealt with in the section, and I submit to the minister that if it is the intention of the department that the consent of the prescribing physician should be in writing, the section should so state. The section is very particular to state that the prescription must be in writing, and that it must not be repeated without the consent of the prescribing physician, but it makes no statement as to the form in which that consent is to be signified. I urge upon the minis-

ter that the section in its present form will tend to cause misunderstanding and create litigation, and result in confusion in the courts if the matter comes up for adjudication.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would think that a fair interpretation of this section would involve that that consent be given in some written form because a record must be kept by the druggist, and he must be in a position to show his authority. It might be given over the phone, followed up by the necessary authority, but I do not think we should weaken it in that respect.


John Alexander Stewart: Very well, add the words " in writing."


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the committee desires to have the words " in writing " inserted I am quite willing, but I think that is what is required under the existing law.


Robert James Manion: I think the section should be left as it is for the reasons mentioned by my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) in connection with veterinary work. The same reasons also apply to medical work. Very often a physician is in bed and in the night one of his patients requires to have repeated some medicine that he has been using. The physician may be two miles from the patient, even in a city, and both may be a mile or two from the druggist. It is too bad to insist that a patient must go a couple of miles to the doctor, then a mile or two to the druggist, and then back home, when the physician could telephone the druggist telling him to refill the prescription. I think the word " authority " covers that, and it is up to the druggist to see that the following day or at the earliest possible moment, he gets a prescription covering that authority. Such a change as that suggested would, I think, result in very great inconvenience and certainly would not be observed.
5 p.m. The minister tells us this requirement of the law has been in force since 19.11-I understood him to say that-but if so it certainly has not been observed. I have been practising all those years and I must confess I have never observed it; and I am sure that no other physician in Ontario has-I refer to the provision for written authority for the refilling of prescriptions. Orders for the refilling of prescriptions have repeatedly been sent over the telephone. I think, therefore* that the word " authority " is sufficient, without insistence upon the repeated written prescription.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

On subsection 5, (former subsection 4)

Minister may issue licenses for import, export, etc., of any drug and may make regulations therefor:
Mr. McKENZIE:: I take it that "import" does not cover prohibited goods passing through Canada in bond en route to another country.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The section is broad enough to cover and is intended to cover drugs that pass through Canada. Apart from the practical considerations which might induce us to adopt such legislation from our own standpoint, one of the provisions of the International Opium Convention requires that the import and export of these drugs be strictly regulated. That is, you cannot export indiscriminately. Each country binds itself to carry out the provisions of this convention. They further bind themselves not to export to any country which prohibits import. This provision is to give us that control over both export and import which it is necessary to have in order to carry out the terms of the Treaty.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A consignment of silks arriving in Vancouver and destined for Newfoundland could hardly be regarded as an import into Canada. I have always understood that the word "import" to refer to goods brought into Canada for consumption in Canada.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The rule which has been adopted is to require even the drugs which come in in bond to come under the provisions of these regulations. During the past ten months requests have been received for license to import in bond very large quantities for storage in Canada, the ostensible purpose being to ship to Japan. The illicit trade is so profitable that the greatest care has to be taken. The intention of this Act is to cover the bringing into Canada of drugs for any purpose. It is intended to be broader than the ordinary case my hon. friend has referred to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, if we are making new law, I am not so much concerned about it. But the case I had in mind is a case where goods went from New York through Canada to Newfoundland. A law was about to go into force in New York under which the shippers would not have been able to send the goods out of New York at all. The time was subsequently extended, but the shippers were not aware of that. They found that they could not export from Canada, the Canadian law evidently prohibiting such export. They consulted the British consul 105
in New York, and were informed that exportation could be made from Newfoundland, the law there not prohibiting it. Accordingly, the goods were sent to Newfoundland and thence to Japan. I do not want to get. any snap verdict from the minister, but I do not regard that as an importation into Canada. As a matter of law, the importation of goods into Canada is the importation of goods for Canadian use. If goods pass through Canada en route to another country, whether in a car or on a boat or in a flying machine, they can hardly be considered as importations into Canada. If the shipment of tea from China through Canada to Liverpool is not importation into Canada; if the shipment of a million dollars' worth of silks through Vancouver and across Canada to Liverpool is not importation into Canada-and nobody will contend that it is-I cannot understand how the passing of drugs through Canada en route to some other country is an importation into Canada. That is the point that I wish to bring to the minister's attention; I want him to think it over.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I should be glad to give further consideration to the point, but the question my hon. friend has raised has already arisen in the administration of the law, and the matter has been submitted to the Department of Justice. It is true that under the general 1-aw relating to shipments in bond, goods may be brought into Canada - in bond, passed through Canada and pass out again without being considered as imports under the provisions of our law. My hon. friend is quite correct in that general assumption as to the meaning of the law; but the Department of Justice is of the opinion that where we provide as we do in this Act that some specific class of goods shall not be imparted into Canada except under license and we make no exception for transmission of those goods in - bond through Canada, then a license is necessary. That is under the Act passed last year. In requiring a license we are not changing the law which .was passed last session. Of course, the object of requiring a license in a case of this kind is to prevent goods from being brought in ostensibly for the purpose of transhipment, which goods, once they get into Canada, .are removed from the oar, the look on the car being broken or through 'some other means, and disposed of in Canada or smuggled across the line, because it is very profitable to do that.


Mr. BRIEN:: This .subclause 1 of clause 5A deals in its latter part with the amount



of the license fee to be charged, and it staJtes that the fee shall not exceed the sum of $25 for any license that may he granted under the Act. The question of the amount of that fee is one that will be affected by the further amendment which it is proposed to make under the notice contained in Friday's Hansard. Under the law a manufacturer who is manufacturing preparations containing less than the quantity of scheduled drugs permitted under the proposed amendment will, under the Act, be liable to pay a fee up to $25; but under the provisions of the exception contained in the further proposed amendment, .a retail druggist may manufacture his own remedies containing the 'permitted quantities of scheduled drugs, and as the Act now reads he would be liable to pay the same license fee as the manufacturer. Surely, a retail druggist who may manufacture a very limited number and quantity of his own remedies should not be liable to pay as large ia fee as a manufacturer who manufactures many lines and in very large quantities. The matter, of course, is, under the provisions of the clause as it reads now, within the discretion of the minister. All that the clause does is to limit the amount of the fee Ito $25. The suggestion, however, is that there should be one fee and that there would be no difference between the case of a manufacturer and that of a retail druggist. What is the intention of the department with reference to the license fee?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will look carefully at the clause, he will see that different forms of licenses are contemplated for different classes of dealers, and it provides for making regulations with respect to the issue, duration, terms and forms of the several licenses that may be issued hereunder and to the payment of fees for such licenses. I quite agree with my hon. friend that it would not be right to charge a druggist, who- is making up his own prescriptions, the same fee as you would charge a large wholesale manufacturer, and it is the intention in fixing the fees for the different classes, to have regard to the extent of the manufacture carried on by the different classes who are authorized under this clause to manufacture or deal in drugs. The fee for a druggist who would do that should be a very small one and I should think that $5 would be quite adequate to meet the situation. The abject of the provisions as to fees is not, as regards this Act, to get a revenue, but to pay the cost of administra-

tion. We want the Act to pay the cost of its administration and not to he a charge upon the public treasury, and that would he the factor which wuuld determine what the amount of the fee would be.


Robert King Anderson: As regards the $5 fee to the local druggist, would it be the intention that he should pay a $5 fee for each variety of prescription that he makes up?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This does not deal with prescriptions in that sense; it is a license to manufacture, and it would be a license fee for a year for everything a druggist may manufacture.


Robert King Anderson: He may manufacture a line of cough medicines and another line of something else.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He would not require 'Separate licenses under this legislation. The license would he a license to manufacture or to sell, and that license would he good for a year for whatever class of prescriptions he manufactures under the provisions of this particular legislation.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I -asked the minister a question in regard to subclause 1 of clause 5A, and he was good enough to tell me that there is a decision of the Department of Justice on a certain point. Might I ask the minister if, before this Bill passes, he will -give the committee the benefit of that opinion? When we are dealing with a Bill of this kind and are told that there is a decision of the Department of Justice, it is only fair, if the decision is not too long, that we should have an opportunity of reading what the Department of Justice says.	*


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I feel very strongly in regard to this matter. I do not think we can call an article, that merely passes in bond through Canada, an [DOT] importation, without passing legislation to that effect,

and I am very .anxious to see the written decision of the Department of Justice on that point.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will find out what there is on that point.


John Alexander Stewart: I would suggest to the minister that subclause 1 of clause 5A should be amended to provide a definite fee, which would be more or less nominal, for a retail druggist who does not manufacture more than a certain limited amount, say $300 or $400 or $500 worth, within the twelve months.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is, of course, no objection to a provision in the Act, but can we fix it absolutely on the amount of his annual manufacture or sale?


John Alexander Stewart: His manufacture, not his sale.


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far as the retail druggist is concerned, we would not require separate licenses for manufacture and sale.


John Alexander Stewart: A retail druggist does not pay any license for sales. He would only pay if he was manufacturing preparations that come within the exceptions in this legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If he was simply selling, not manufacturing, he would not require a license.


John Alexander Stewart: He does not require a license to sell anyway. My point is this: Under the Bill as it now stands a retail druggist is not obliged to take out a license at all, but the manufacturer -who manufactures any preparations containing any of the drugs mentioned in the schedule must take out a license. Under subsection (1) of section 5A the limit is fixed at $25. What I submit is that a retail druggist who is manufacturing his own remedies up to only a limited quantity, say $300 or $400 in value should not be required to pay the same fee as a manufacturer manufacturing large quantities and a wide range.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is nothing in the Bill to say that they shall both pay the same.


John Alexander Stewart: There is nothing in the Bill to say that they shall not. I submit that it would give the druggists a far greater sense of security if they knew what they would be liable to pay under the Act. After all, the amount a retail druggist should be called upon to pay should be only a nominal sum, provided that the lines he
manufactures do not in the aggregate amount to a considerable sum.


Robert King Anderson: I think the license should apply only to the manufacturer. I do not see why the retail druggist should pay a fee on the small quantities of remedies he puts up. On the other hand, $25 is a small fee for a manufacturer who is manufacturing patent' remedies in large quantities.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Act was made broad enough so as to distinguish between the large manufacturer and the man who takes out a license to manufacture only a small quantity. The retail druggist does not need a license unless he is a manufacturer. Some retail druggists manufacture in substantial quantities, others in very limited quantities. If it is the desire of the committee that the amount should be specified I am quite willing to accept the figures mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Stewart), or even to say that a druggist who did not manufacture more than $500 worth per annum, should not be called on to pay a fee of say more than $5-any reasonable fee that would help pay the cost of administration.


John Alexander Stewart: I would submit that $500 of preparations containing the drugs set out in the schedule to this Act would be a very large amount for the average druggist, especially in the small towns.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What about $300?


Mr. HENDERS:: I believe it would be better if we simply specified that unless a druggist manufactures more than $300 worth, let us say, there will be no fee.


Mr. BOYS:: Is that the retail price or the cost of manufacturing?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It all depends on the language used in framing the amendment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It must be the retail price.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Stewart) would frame an amendment in writing in accordance with his suggestion, we could pass on to the next subsection, and in that way I think we would make better progress.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I should like to ask the hon. member what he means by manufacturing? A retail druggist may manufacture $2,000 or $3,000 worth of these drugs simply to satisfy his own trade. I do not think he should pay any license fee at all when manufacturing only for his own trade, but when he manufactures beyond that, and

* enters the wholesale business practically, he should pay a license lee irrespective of 4he quantity he manufactures. I think it -would be very unfair to limit a retail druggist to a certain amount. The fee should depend upon whether he was manufacturing for his own trade or for outside.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I desire to express an objection to this subsection. Hon. members will notice that it proposes to confer very many and very important powers upon the Minister of Health, without the approval of anybody. Of course, if we were always sure of having a man like the present Minister of Health we might feel perfectly safe in trusting such large powers to him, but as a general principle I do not think it is safe to give such important powers to any one man. Just let me read the powers that are to be conferred upon him. These powers are to be exercised not by the Governor in Council but by the minister:
The Minister presiding over the Department of Health shall have power to issue licenses for the import, export, sale, manufacture and distribution of any drug, to name the ports or places in Canada where any drug may be exported or imported, to prescribe the manner in which any raw opium, prepared opium or any drug is packed and marked for export, to prescribe the record that shall be kept by any licensee in connection With the export, import, receipt, sale, disposal and distribution of the drug or drugs mentioned in such license, and to make all convenient and necessary regulations with respect to the issue and duration and the terms and forms of the several licenses that may he issued hereunder and to the payment of fees for such licenses.
These powers are to be exercised by the minister without the approval of the Governor in Council, without the approval of Parliament. Personally I am not in favour of giving such extensive and important powers to any one man. These powers [DOT]should be given to the minister, subject to [DOT]the approval of Parliament; they should be effective only after having been approved of by Parliament. I do not know whether any other hon. members concur in this suggestion, but I feel strongly on the point. Speaking generally, it is not safe 'to put such extensive and important powers into the hands of any one man.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I endorse what my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) has said. Unless the minister [DOT]can give us some reasons why these matters *should not be subject to the approval of Parliament, or at least subject to approval by the Governor in Council, I do not think the section should stand as it is. Possibly

it might be going a little far to require that the regulations should be approved by Parliament, but I think that it would meet the view's of my hon. friend from West Elgin if it were required that the regulations should be approved by the Governor in Council. I heartily endorse what the hon. member has said, and I think it is desirable to have council as a whole, rather than any single minister, pass on regulations.
Mr. ROWELL; I have not the least objection to amending the clause so as to provide for approval by the Governor in Council. That would be the procedure in any case. The Bill as it stands is in the form in which it was drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel, but I think that there is something in/ the objections which my hon. friend has urged. As a matter of practice, these powers would not be exercised without the approval of the Governor in Council, and I therefore move to amend subsection one by inserting at the commencement of the clause the words "with the approval of the Governor in Council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The- CHAIRMAN: Shall the subsection carry?
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move that the subsection stand until I have heard the amendment of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Stewart).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Subsection stands.
On subsection 2-Penalty for importing or exporting drugs without license.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I move to amend clause (f) by striking out the word "an" in lme 36 and substituting therefor the words "a criminal, so that the clause will provide that persons incurring the penalty under it "shall be guilty of a criminal offence," etc. I move this amendment in order to bring the clause into harmony with the provisions of the existing law. The Act of 1911 referred to the offences under the Act as criminal offences, making it clear that it is the criminal jurisdiction which is being exercised by this Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henri Sévérin Béland: In view of the amendment which has been made to subsection one, does not the minister think that it would be advisable to amend clauses (a) to (f) inclusive in subsection 2, so as to conform to the amendment in the previous sub-

section? The word "minister" appears in some of these clauses, in subsection 2, and in some cases the approval of the Governor in Council may be necessary, particularly with regard to the naming of the port of import.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think that what my hon. friend has in view is covered by the previous amendment. In subsection one I inserted at the outset the words, "with the approval of the Governor in Council; so that the minister can only exercise any of the powers enumerated in the subclauses under consideration with the approval of the Governor in Council.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then there is no necessity for repeating the words "Governor in Council"?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No.


Mr. TWEED IK:: The penalties imposed under this section are rather excessive. There seems to be a tendency, not only on the part of this Government but of other governments as well, to create crimes that do not exist under the Criminal Code, and to impose very heavy penalties either by way of imprisonment or by fine. Subclause (f) of this subsection, as amended, makes the offender guilty of a criminal offence, and provides that he shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and costs, and not less than $500 and costs, or to imprisonment for' a term not to exceed one year, or to both fine and imprisonment. If they make a contravention of these provisions a criminal offence, it seems to me that the Government should not deprive an accused person of any of the remedies which he would ordinarily have if convicted of any offence under the Code. Our methods of procedure under the Criminal Code are divided into three classes: Under indictment for criminal offence; under the section of the Code which provides for summary trial; and under section 15, I think, of the Code, providing for summary conviction. When a man is brought to trial under the summary conviction section of the Code, his rights are limited to the smallest degree. You may take a druggist who is summoned before a stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace who have equal (jurisdiction. If there is a conviction his right of appeal is cut off except where he may desire to appeal to the district court or county court judge. The result is that he has no trial before the district court or county court judge and if a conviction
is obtained any further right of appeal on behalf of the man is taken away. I believe that where a man is charged with anything in the nature of a crime, and this Act makes the contravention of its subsections a crime, the person so charged should have his full rights under the same procedure as that which applies where a man is charged with theft or burglary or any other crime under the general code. Another difficulty that arises in connection with this procedure is that under the Criminal Code, if a man is charged with a criminal offence and he is tried and appeals, there is no burden placed upon him so far as his appeal is concerned. He has the right to appeal to the supreme court of the province and, with the consent of the judge, to the Supreme Court of *Canada without his being required to deposit any security or to give bonds for costs. Take the first section here. A penalty is provided for any person who "imports into or exports from Canada any drug without first obtaining a license." Take a man who imports, through a' port of entry, say, in British Columbia, goods which are to be used perhaps in the province of Nova Scotia. The offence would be committed at the port of entry; the importation would take place in British Columbia. The accused is in the province of Nova (Scotia. He is brought before the magistrates and convicted. He desires to appeal. All the evidence in this case is in the province of British Columbia and the first thing that the magistrates would do under part 15 of the Code, under which they are compelled to proceed in this case, would be to say to the accused: "You have the right to appeal but one of the conditions precedent to your appeal is that you shall either deposit the amount of the costs or give a bond securing the costs in the appeal." What does that mean? Witnesses may have to be brought from British Columbia or the accused may have to go from Nova Scotia to British Columbia to stand his trial, and it involves great expense on his part. He might have to take witnesses from Nova Scotia. The justices of the pace might fix his costs at $500 or $1,000, as I have known them to do under the summary convictions sections. You make the appeal prohibitory in the case of that man, while as a matter of justice and of law he has perfectly good grounds for an appeal. One thing that this Government should frown down upon is the creation of a serious offence undeT any statute and then compelling a man to have his trial under the summary convictions sections of the Code, part 15. Having created

a serious offence, it is our duty to place at his disposal every right that a man charged *with a serious offence under the Criminal Code has and to compel him to go to his trial under the summary convictions sections of the Code, it seems to me, is to take away from him . rights which he should enjoy just the same is if he were charged with any other offence.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I mentioned previously that there should be a word or two added to clause (e) of section 2 because it makes it an offence for a man to have possession of any one of these drugs; it matters not how he came into possession of them. The point might be met by adding after the word,s "in his possession" the words "illegally obtained" or something to that effect. As the matter now stands a man might get a doctor's prescription, go to a drug store, buy a drug, the inspector might find it in his possession and he could be fined $500 by the magistrate for having it in his possession, no matter how he came by it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No doubt my hon. friend is right. The intention was to cover the retailer or trader, but if you stick to the wording you find that a man who has in his possession a bottle containing some narcotic might be very severely punished even although he obtained it legally.


Mr. BOWELL:: The point might be met by inserting after the words "in his possession" the words "without lawful authority."


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Very good.


Mackenzie Bowell: I therefore move to amend paragraph (e) of subsection 2 by inserting after the word "possession" the words "without lawful authority."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Alexander Stewart: Section (f) provides for the case where a manufacturer or dealer might neglect to enter up a transaction in the record book required to be kept under the Act, and a later part of this subsection provides that upon conviction for an offence of that kind the minimum penalty shall be $500. Having regard to the necessity for strict regulations covering the earlier paragraphs of this subsection 2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) particularly, the necessity for the maximum amount is quite patent. But surely a minimum penalty of $500 is altogether too severe for many cases of failure that might arise under this particular clause ;(f), and which might be mere technical violations of the Act.


Mr.   EOWELL@: I think there is real force in what my hon. friend has said as applied to this particular class of cases. I think we might drop that $500 to $200. I would therefore move to amend subsection 2 by substituting for the word "five" in the 38th line, page 2, of the Bill, the word "two."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before that
amendment is put, I would like to ask if that sufficiently meets the point raised by my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie). If it does not, I would like to say that I am very much in accord with the point he has raised. In creating a criminal offence there should be some way of conserving to a person accused of violating the law all the rights and privileges that any one so indicted might take advantage of.


Mr.   EOWELL@: I am sorry, if by following my hon. friend's legislation of 1911 I have presented an amendment now that creates difficulty. In the Act of 1911, section 5 which provides the penalty, specifically makes it a criminal offence punishable on summary conviction, and I have only suggested this amendment to bring the present clause into harmony with that referred to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This Bill goes very much further than the Act of 1911.


Mr.   EOWELL@: It is true that the present Bill covers other cases-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes,


Mr.   EOWELL@: -although the Act of
1911 covered all cases where these drugs were sold without a doctor's prescription.
I appreciate the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Tweedie) but on the other hand if you are not going to permit these cases to be dealt with by summary procedure under the Code you are going to have delays in prosecution and a lack of harmony in procedure under different clauses of the Act.
I would submit it is wise to deal with cases under the section by summary procedure. That is the practice under the present law, that has been the law for the past nine years, and that is the reason for inserting in this section the word " criminal." I do not know that it changes the character of the offence at all; it was done as a matter of form, so that no argument could be raised as between offences. Under section 5 in the law as it stands where the offence is described as a criminal offence and under section 5a where it is simply referred to as an offence. Therefore for the sake of uniformity I proposed the amendment. It is, however, in the exercise of the

criminal jurisdiction of this Parliament that we are dealing with this particular matter-that is the basis upon which the original legislation stand's, as I am advised. Therefore I do not think we are adding to, or taking from,- the clause anything by using the word " criminal " I referred to. It is simply to avoid an argument being made that there is a distinction between offences under this clause 5a and under clause 5 that I have moved to insert the word " criminal " before offence.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: I still maintain my
point. If small penalties were being imposed under this Bill-say $10 or $15-and if there was no option to the imposition of the term of imprisonment, summary conviction would be very good procedure; but here we are takng away the liberty of a man for a period of a year, and I think that is very unfair. The section might be worded so that the proceeding might be either under summary conviction or indictment and leave the election to the accused. If he wanted to get rid of the matter quickly and proceed by way of summary conviction all right. If he wanted to proceed under an indictment that he should have the right to say so. But to lay down the rule that a man is liable to the penitentiary for a year or to pay a fine of $1,000 depending upon the discretion of two justices of the peace, or a stipendary magistrate, i3, I think very unfair to the accused. A penalty of $500 is excessive and so is a year's imprisonment.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.
iMr. ROWELL.: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I wish to consider some of the amendments that have been suggested.
Progress reported.
CANADIAN (MERCHANT MARINE- ANSWERS TO 'QUESTION'S!.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen for Committee of Supply:


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish shortly to direct attention to the answers we have been receiving to certain questions on the Order Paper-answers which to some members of the House are not at all satisfactory. It is a well-established principle that Parliament is entitled to some information regarding the expenditure of money, but as appears from the answers that have been given to certain questions on the Order Paper this year, the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) are declining to give information that should be given. Merribers of the House are constantly being told that it is not in the public interest to answer certain questions that are placed on the Order Paper. Now, I want to lay down the principle that it is always in the public interest that the people should know how their money is being spent. I quite understand that there may be exceptions; that while negotiations are proceeding it may not be advisable to disclose all the facts. But after the business is completed; as regards, for example, the shipping industry, after the charter is signed and after the-money has been earned and the acoounts closed there can be no reason why Parliament should not have the information.
It is in regard chiefly to the management of the Government ships that. I make this complaint. The people of Canada have invested a very large sum of money in the shipping industry,-about $70,000,000. Instead of placing the title to these ships in the King, as would be the natural way to proceed, the Government have seen fit to organize a company called the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, and the title to the ships is placed in that company. We are told that that company is, in a sense, a private concern, and that members of the House have no right to know what it is doing. To my mind, that company is simply the Government. It is another name for the Government; the Government are responsible for its transactions and responsible to Parliament for all the expenditures that the company makes. The responsibility of the Government is not lessened in the slightest degree by the fact that the title to the ships stands in a company created by themselves.
These ships, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are under the control oif the Railway Department. On the Order Paper to-day I placed the following question:
1.	Did the Railway Department or the Canadian Government Merchant Marine (Limited) or any one on tpeir behalf purchase a cargo of coal at Halifax or elsewhere in Nova Scotia to load one of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine (Limited) for delivery abroad?
The answer I got was as follows:
The department has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are transactions which are carried on by the Cana-

dian Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.
Now, I submit that that was a proper question; that the- Canadian Government Merchant Marine is a creature of the Government, and that the Government should have inquired of the officers controlling that company with regard to this matter and should have answered the questions that I put. The other questions, with their answers, were as follows:	,
2.	If so, from what company or person was said coal purchased?
Answered by No. 1.
S.	What was the price paid?
Answered by No. 1.
4.	Was a commission paid to any broker or company or other person, and if so. how much?
Answered by No. 1.
5.	How many tons were purchased?
Answered by No. 1.
6.	Were tenders invited by public advertisement in the newspaper for the purchase of said coal?
Answered by No. 1.	.
7.	Who was the lowest tenderer?
Answered by No. 1.
Now. you can see that I got very little useful information in reply to my questions. Does this company own the Government, or does the Government own the company?- that is what I want to get at. The Government purchased the coal, I take it, with the money of the Canadian people, Yet the inference from the answers given to my questions is that Parliament is not entitled to any information in regard to the business of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine; that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is here represented a close corporation under the control of the Minister of Railways; that it can do whatever it pleases with regard to the purchase of coal or anything else. The only information we can get about the management of these Government ships is that it is in the hands of a corporation under the name of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.
This is not the first time this refusal has been indulged in. In the discussion of the Government's proposal to spend another $20,000,000 in the construction of tramp vessels, the Minister of Marine was pressed1 for a detailed business statement of the operation of the ships up to December 31, 1919. He did not give it to the House. He gave us a fragmentary statement showing certain things, but he did not give us a complete business statement similar to that which would be given by any joint stock company in regard to operations of this kind. He was pressed for this statement when he was putting the estimate through the House. He replied ;by saying that he had the statement on his
	.
desk and that he was willing to place it on Hansard. Members on this side supposed that the statement would be placed on Hansard, and that they would see it on the following day, but when Hansard came out the following day the statement was not there. The leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) asked why the statement had not been produced as intimated by the minister. The minister replied that he could not put it on Hansard without the leave of the House. But the minister did not ask for the leave of the House to place the statement on Hansard, and it has not yet been produced.


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: I am sure that the hon. member does not want to make any statement which is not based on the facts. I do not know whether or not he was present fit the time, but if he was, he must have heard me say that I was perfectly willing to place a detailed profit statement on Hansard, but that I could not do so without reading it unless the unanimous consent of the committee was given. I did not get the unanimous consent of the committee: therefore the statement did not appear on Hansard.


Mr. CAHILL:: Who objected?


John Howard Sinclair: That is just what I am trying to explain to the House. The minister was quite willing, when I asked for this statement, to put it on Hansard. He made no objection to doing so, and everybody thought that it would be found on Hansard the next day, but it was not there. Whose place was it to ask for the leave of the House? Was it my place? Was it the place of anybody on this side? Or was it the place of the minister? It was the duty of the minister, I take it, under the rules of the House, to read the statement; then it would have been taken down by the reporter and would have appeared in Hansard. The minister did not do that. He could have got the statement on Hansard in that way; or he could have placed it on Hansard by asking for leave from yourself, Mr. Speaker, to do so. Then the matter would have come up before the House; leave would no doubt have been given him and the statement would have become a matter of record It was his place, not mine, nor that of anybody else on this side to put that statement on Hansard, but the minister did not do that. The following day the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked him why he did not do so, and that was the reason that was given. The minister stated that the ships
/

belonging to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had made twenty-eight complete voyages before the end of the year. We are asking for the result of these voyages. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) asked for a statement showing the result of these voyages, and the answer that he got is as follows:
It is not considered in the public interest to publish the results of the individual voyages.
That is the next explanation we get, and I want to take exception to that answer. I cannot understand how it would toe against the public interest for the people of this country to know the results of the operations of this branch of my hon. friend's department up to the end of the year. I can understand that, during the time negotiations are going on for charters for freight, it would not toe in the public interest to publish all the facts about the matter; but after a charter has been made; after a ship has made her trip, after the money is in the minister's pocket and the accounts are all settled, it surely must be in the public interest that the people should know what their vessels are doing. But the minister told my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) that it is not in the public interest to give us the results of those twenty-eight voyages that were completed before the end of the year. A few days later the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. J. C. Douglas), who sits behind the minister, asked him the following questions :
1.	What was the total quantity of (a) Canadian coal and (b) American coal purchased for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in Canada for the year ending December 31, 1919?
2.	What was the quantity of such coal purchased by tender and contract?
3.	When were the tenders called, where and how were they published and were the lowest tenderers in each case awarded the contract?
4.	What was the quantity supplied by each successful tenderer and at what price and place?
5.	What was the quantity, price and place of delivery of all coal not supplied under tender and contract, and what are the names of the companies or firms supplying same?
6.	What is the estimated quantity of coal to be used by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the year 1920 as to (a) Canadian coal and (b) American coal?
7.	What contracts, if any, have already been entered into, and what are the particulars of such contracts, as to contracting firms, point of supply, quantity and price?
These are all proper and pertinent questions asked by a supporter of the Government. What answer do you suppose he got?
Sir George Foster (Acting Prime Minister) : The Government has no returns in its records showing the information asked for. These are
transactions which are carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as an incorporated company.
There you are again! The Canadian Government Merchant Marine "as in incorporated company " is put up bet-wene the members of this House and the Government as a protection for these transactions. I do not say the transactions are wrong; I do 'not know anything about them. But this is a very proper and pertinent question, and it should have received a clear and definite answer. Instead of that we are told that the business is carried on by a joint stock company and practically that the Government do not know anything about it. >
I must confess, after a number of years of experience in this House, I have never before heard of an important subject like this being trifled with in this way by a minister. Each answer is inconsistent with the others. It reminds one of a story-in Comic Blackstone of an old woman who had borrowed her neighbour's pot and the pot was cracked and was returned to the owner in a damaged condition. She was sued for damages, and like my hon. friend, she decided to put up a defence and fight it out to the bitter end. The first count of her defence was that she never borrowed the pot; the second was that the pot was cracked when she borrowed it, and the third was that the pot was whole when she returned it. This is a similar case. One day we are told by the minister that he is quite willing to disclose the facts; he says: "I have the statements on my desk, and I will put them on Hansard." When the leader of the Opposition asks him the following day: "Why did you not do so?" "Oh," he says, "I could not do so without the unanimous consent of the House." And the unanimous consent of the House was never asked for by the minister. Then the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) says: "I want to know the facts about this matter," and what does the minister reply? He says: "It is not in the public interest to tell you anything about it." The next question is asked by a supporter of the Government, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond: How are you purchasing the coal for these ships? Are you purchasing the coal by tender?" The answer is: "This is an incorporated company; we do not know anything about it; we have no information at all to give you." That is the way hon. members get information in regard to the management of this important business for which Parliament has voted the large sum of $70,000,000. I

should like to know why my hon. friends are resorting to all these excuses. Why do they not tell us frankly? This is a business transaction; we have invested a large amount of money in this venture, and we have a right to know all the facts about it. Apart from the railways themselves, I .suppose there is no other business venture that the Government have ever gone into that they have invested so much money in as this one. We all hope that the venture will be successful; but there is one thing that the people will not stand for, and that is to permit any irresponsible corporation to handle such a large sum of money without a strict accounting being given and Parliament being allowed to know all they are doing. All that we on this side of the House are asking for is a clear, business statement. Every incorporated company that is handling the money of its shareholders gives those shareholders at the end of the year a business statement. The minister has told us that he has on hand $1,400,000 odd to the good. That is all right; we are very glad to hear that. But the minister may have in his other pocket liabilities amounting to this sum. We do not know; we want to have, from the minister, or from some member of the company, a business statement, such as is given by any other company that owns vessels or a railway, that will show us just how much liability there is, how much the company has earned and how the business has got along up to the end of the year. My hon. friend has told us that twenty-eight completed voyages were made by these ships. His book-keeper will be able, without much trouble, to give us the freight earned on each voyage, the wages that were paid, the supplies that were bought, the insurance that was effected, and all the other expenses; then he can strike a balance, and we shall know what that ship earned on that voyage. It would not he very much trouble for the department to get out these statements, and it would certainly be very satisfactory to members of the House to have this information. It is no use for the minister to tell us that it is against the public interest to give out this information, or that this business is run by a joint stock company and the Government does not know what that joint stock company is doing. I do not see how it can be .shown that it is not in the public interest for the members of this House, who represent the people of this country, to know how the. people's 
money is feeing spent. Who are the guardians of the public interest? Is it the Government alone? Is not each one of us,- are not you, Mr. Speaker, and every member of this House a guardian of the public interest as well as the Government? Is it for the Government to sit back and say that because they have set up a joint stock company to do the business of shipping in this country, it is not in the public interest to tell the .members of this Parliament how that business is being conducted and what are its earnings? I submit that it is in the public interest for us to have this information, and I should very much like to hear the minister give us any good reason why he thinks it is not.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The question (that the hon. imember for An'tigonish and Guysborough ,(Mr. Sinclair) has raised is a very important o.ne. I have been in this House for many years, and I know something about the operation of the Intercolonial railway. I have seen questions on the Order Paper day after day with regard to the operations (of that road, no matter what Government iwas in power. Was it in the public interest that these questions were answered tat That time? Let me just give one or two [instances to show 'the results of answering just such questions as the hon. member has asked. I remember when I came into this House .some twenty-five or thirty years ago, the question of coal supplies for the operation of the Intercolonial was a very important one. Tenders wese called for by the Government from time to time. The coal supplied by the Dominion Iron and [Steel Company, and I think the Nova Scotia Steel Company, in the Province of Nova iScotia, was quoted at a certain price. The coal from New Brunswick was not worth half .as much as the cotal supplied by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and was purchased at a less price. But to-day for this inferior coal from New Brunswick, which is not worth half as much as the Dominion Iron and Steel Company coal, we have to pay, through the influence and pressure of members of the House of Commons, practically the same price as we pay for the higher grade coal supplied by these other companies. We have to pay the same price on account of the pressure brought to bear at that time. The same thing applies with regard to the prices of ties and other material. However, the Intercolonial railway was owned by the people of Canada, every dollar invested in it had been put up by The people of Canada,

and the read had no outside obligations. Now we have ether roads. We have the Canadian National Railway system. It is true that the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental are paid for by the people of Canada, and that there is not one dollar [DOT]against these roads, but we have also the Canadian Northern system, and we are [DOT]likely within a very short time to take over the Grand Trunk railway as well. Now the people have claims against these railways ,by way of bonds, and they have therefore a great interest in them. Is it right, or just, or in the interests of these railways,' that we should expose their operations from day to day? Is it right that we should (expose the operations of the merchant marine and of these railways to those who are jworking in opposition to the Government [DOT]system? Let me just cite a question that was on the Order Paper to-day and which was answered, just to show how much it is in the public interest that hon. members [DOT]should get this information. I do not believe this question originated with the hon. member. I believe it originated with some individual in the city of Ottawa who is here looking for a job, or else the answer was required for political purposes to destroy the cause of public ownership in this country. This was the question:
Mr. Chisholm: 1. What are the names of the captains now employed on board the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine at present in commission and where were they born?
2. What are the names of the first officers of the said ships and where were they horn?
Obviously there may be some man in charge of one of the Government ships who was noit horn in Canada, and the hon. member wants this information in order that he may use it for political purposes or else to destroy the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I want to tell the minister that the question did originate w,th me. I have my purpoise in asking it, and I want the information.


John Dowsley Reid: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but in my judgment the hon. gentleman wants this information in order that he may use it on the stump to destroy the Government Merchant Marine.


Alexander William Chisholm: The hon. member is absolutely wrong. He does not know my mind. He has enough to do to know his own mind.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman will have his opportunity to reply.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know the hon. gentleman's mind, but I have a right to draw my own conclusions. Here is another question:
Mr. Pardee: 1. With whom was the fire insurance on the Canadian National railways placed, and by whom?
2. What individuals or firms were asked to compete upon it?
S. In what companies was the insurance effected and at what rate?
There is no doubt in my mind that some person who wants to get this insurance and could not get it from the Canadian National Railways came to Ottawa and asked the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) to put that question on the Order Paper that he might use the information given for some political purpose. I might say that I have had- men coming here to Ottawa trying to use their influence to sell coal to the Canadian National Railway and to the Government Merchant Marine, but I have always taken the stand from the very first, and will continue to take it so long as I am in the position I now occupy, that they must deal with the management of these undertakings. A few days after these people have tried to get contracts from the management, if a contract is refused, you will see a question on the Order Paper in the name of some member of the Opposition asking the price that the Canadian National Railways is paying, for coal for instance, in different parts of Canada. I have seen this in the past and I know how it w'orks. If these people do not get a contract they will try and raise trouble in the particular locality from which they come. The Opposition has asked a question for the purpose of obtaining some information which they think will enable them _ to spread broadcast some sinister suggestion that the Government is paying more for coal in one part of the country than in another when they can avoid this inequality in prices. Every hon. member must know that the prices in different parts of the country, whether they be higher or lower than those obtainable in other places, are perfectly justified. This remark applies also to ties. In one part of the country you may pay more for ties than elsewhere owing to the greater cost of wood and of labour and hauling. But if hon. members can obtain an answer showing that the prices are higher in one particular part of the country than in another, of course they will seize upon this fact as ground for the charge that something wrong has been done. Now, the Canadian Merchant Marine is operating in opposition to the great Canadian Pacific

marine and other shipping interests throughout the world as well. Similarly, the Canadian National railways are operating in opposition to the Canadian Pacific. And if the Government are to be compelled to give answers to all these questions that are asked by those who are trying either to get contracts or to obtain some information that will give private interests an advantage against the Canadian National railways or the Canadian Merchant Marine, then I say that we might just as well put an end to public ownership at once. I think we should have in charge of the Canadian Merchant Marine and the Canadian National railways men in whom not only the Government but the members of this House and the people of the country can have the utmost confidence, feeling perfectly secure in the knowledge that they will manage these public enterprises with all the care, skill and diligence which they would devote to their personal property. As a precaution, therefore, we have established a system of audit which affords abundant protection. We have the company's own auditors who scrutinize every expenditure that is made; next, we have a set of auditors who are in no Way connected with the company and who carry on an independent and thorough audit; and in addition to that I have suggested another set of auditors who will be appointed. A man will be appointed by the Railway Department, another by the Auditor General's Department, and a third by the Finance Department, and these men will go over every account and contract and submit their own audit. The Canadian National Railways will then submit their own audit. The Canadian National Railways will then submit to Parliament through the Department of Railways an official report, not merely equal to but fuller than that which the Canadian Pacific Railway submits to its shareholders. The annual meeting of the Canadian National Railways takes place on May 10, when that report will be laid on the table of the House.
I leave it to hon. gentlemen in this House and the people of this country to suggest how in the world we can make the railway a success if we are to answer all these small questions that are put on the Order Paper for the purpose, as I conceive, first of making political capital and endeavouring to ruin public ownership, and secondly, in the interests of private individuals who are seeking, through the medium of members of Parliament, to get information that may be of benefit to them. I am firmly of the opinion that the railway can be made a
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l
success under public ownership if it is given a fair chance. I have taken the stand from the outset that so long as we have confidence in those whom we select to manage the railways, and so long as we are satisfied that their management is really and truly economical and in the public interest, they should be unhampered in their operations. But so long as I do not believe that it is in the public interest to answer questions which I know are put on the Order Paper, through any member of Parliament, by individuals who have been hanging around Ottawa for weeks trying to force contracts from the Canadian National Railways, I shall refuse to give such information, at least while I am Minister of Railways.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: 
John Dowsley Reid: I explained a moment ago how the public interest is protected in this matter. We have the general manager and the directors and their officials, in whom we have every confidence. We have also a set of auditors appointed by those men. Then we have another set of auditors who are in no way connected with the railway, an outside firm of competent auditors appointed by the Government. Besides this the Auditor General's Department will audit every cent of expenditure and scrutinize every contract.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand the minister to say that this House will not have an ap-portunity to pass upon the conduct or to inquire into the purchases of this Board of Administration?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that the accounts should be submitted in the way in which the accounts have been in connection with the Intercolonial, and I say that for this reason: There is about $400,000,000 invested in the Canadian Northern railway by bondholders, whose property should be protected and not be allowed to be subject to political influence which may injure it. The same thing will apply to the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Thomas Vien: I should like to state my question precisely, because either I did not quite catch the minister's answer or he failed to catch my question. Will the House

have any means of judging of the expenditures of the Board of Railway Administrators otherwise than by the report of these auditors?


John Dowsley Reid: This House will have the report of the Canadian National Railways on May 10. It will not give a detailed statement for every cent that has been expended similar to thut which has been given with reference to the Intercolonial.


Mr. COPP:: Will it show where the coal is purchased and the price paid for it?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I cannot give any information of that kind.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Will the auditors give it?


John Dowsley Reid: I will give the information that is contained in the report of May 10, and that I will stand by. I cannot go into the details until we have had the annual report.


Frank S. Cahill: I understood the minister to say that the meeting of the Canadian National Railways was to be held on the 10th of May.


John Dowsley Reid: The 10th May.


Frank S. Cahill: The Canadian National
Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: The Canadian Northern and the Canadian National; the report will be for the whole system.


Henri Sévérin Béland: A meeting of the shareholders?


John Dowsley Reid: The shareholders.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the whole people of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: It means the annual meeting of the Canadian Northern and its subsidiaries and the whole Government system. There will be a report showing the operation of what is to be the whole -Canadian National system.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who will be entitled to attend that meeting?


John Dowsley Reid: The shareholders.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The people of Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: The people of Canada ar^ represented by the Government and the Government will have their representatives present.


Mr. GOPP:: That will be the Minister of Railways himself?


John Dowsley Reid: It may be the Minister of Railways, it may be the Minister of Finance, or it may be the whole Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It might be the whole Parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: It will be the Government in this case. I want to emphasize the fact that these questions are not in the interest of this corporation, that they are not in the public interest, that they are not in the interest of the Canadian National railways and that they are not in the interest of the Canadian Merchant Marine. I have taken that position'; I believe it is right and fair; I believe the people of Canada will not stand to have questions of that kind answered which will have the effect of destroying public ownership in so far as the Merchant Marine and the Canadian National railways are concerned. Neither the Canadian Pacific nor any other corporation would give the information that is asked by some members of this House.


Thomas Vien: Would the Canadian Pacific not give that information to its shareholders?


John Dowsley Reid: No, they never have *ior has any other private corporation that ever existed. More than that, I do not believe there is a shareholder of any private corporation who would think it right, just or fair to ask some of the ridiculous questions that are asked by some hon. members on the other side of the House.


Frank S. Cahill: The statute under which the minister is operating this Canadian National railway states that the annual meeting shall be held on the second Thursday in April each year or on such date as the directors may from time to time determine. When did they determine to hold it on the 10th May, and for what reason?


John Dowsley Reid: If I had the answer which I gave to the hon. gentleman to-day I would give the same answer to the question which he now asks. I do not know, because I am not operating the railway. The directors are the ones who might answer that question.


Frank S. Cahill: You had better bring them here.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is through me that question should be answered. At all events, the meeting is being called in accordance with the charter. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is making statements and charges in connection with the men who are operating this railway that I do not believe any other hon. member would make. I think it is the most unfair and unjust criti-

cism that was ever offered in this House. The president and directors of the railway are all upright, honourable, honest men. Wherever they have lived, in Toronto or elsewhere, they are regarded as being men beyond reproach. They are doing their very best to operate this system and to make it a success, and I do not think it is very encouraging to have members of this House asking questions and criticising what they are doing. I do not think it is in the public interest, and I do hope that all hon. members on both sides of the House in future will not pursue a course of this kind. If they want information that is fair I am sure the board will be pleased to give it to them, but if questions are asked in order to make political capital or in the interest of some private individual I believe they are right in refusing it. I shall stand by them and try to make the operation of the Canadian National railways and the Canadian Merchant Marine a success.


Mr. DUFF:: Would the minister be good enough to give us the names of the Canadian Merchant Marine management?


John Dowsley Reid: They'are the members of the board of directors who operate the Canadian National system. Mr. Hanna is president. There are also: Mr. A. J. Mitchell, the comptroller or financial man of the Canadian Northern; Mr. Bell, the deputy minister; Mr. Hobson, of Hamilton; Sir Hormisdas Laporte, of Montreal; Mr. E. R. Wood, of Toronto; Mr. Barnhill, of New Brunswick; Mr. Cantlie, Mr. Riley, and another whose name I cannot recall at the moment. These are all men beyond reproach and men in whom the public have full confidence. I feel that we can trust them. They do not believe that it is in the public interest that we should have all this little stuff answered for the purpose of making political capital or in the interest of those who are hounding them, coming to Ottawa and trying to use their influence with the department and with members. They do not believe it is in the public interest that this state of affairs should continue. I am the last one to withhold information that I believe to be in the public interest, but so long as I believe it is not in the public interest I must take the position which I do and abide by the consequences.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I right in understanding that as regards information respecting the merchant marine or the Canadian National railways, which members of this House believe to be 
in the public interest, no answer will be given unless the minister or the board of directors believe it is in the public interest?


John Dowsley Reid: Whenever a question is asked by any member in this House- whether on this side or the other side-it will be submitted to the Government and the Government will have to decide whether it is in the public interest or not. If it is a question that we can answer fairly, no matter whether it relates to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine or the Canadian Government railways, we will ask the Board of Management for the information and insist upon getting it, and will give it .to the public; but if the Government think it is not in the public interest that that information should be given, then I say we will not give it.
Mr. BEiLAND: It is agreed that if there is a deficit in the operation of the Canadian National railways this Parliament must be asked to vote the amount necessary to cover that deficit. I wish to ask if the expenditure on those railways can be the subject of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee of this House?


John Dowsley Reid: When the money necessary to cover a deficit is being voted by Parliament I am prepared to give information that I think should satisfy the members of this House or any other person who does not want to make political capital out of it. But I do not think it in the public interest that we should disclose what was paid for coal to one man in one part of Canada and the price paid to another man in some other part, simply that it may be used for political capital. In every legitimate case I will give information that I think will satisfy the House. If hon. gentlemen do not think sufficient protection as to expenditures is afforded by having an audit of the Canadian National railways by regularly appointed auditors-by an auditing firm having the highest standing in the country-and also by the auditing that is done by the Auditor Geperal's Department, the Finance Department, and the Department of Railways, it is up to them to say what further safeguard they want. If the system I have outlined is not satisfactory and the House authorizes further steps to be tatken then of course I will abide by its decision.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind the
House that on a motion to go into Supply each hon. member is limited to one speech. The hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) has spoken and the

Minister of Railways has replied; but for the last few moments the House has been proceeding in a very irregular way; the minister has been interrogated as though the House were in Committee of the Whole. I must therefore ask hon. gentlemen to observe the customary and well established procedure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The speeches which
are now being delivered would not have been made, Mr. Speaker, if the information asked for on this side had been given in the usual way in reply to questions put on the Order Paper. But that well estab-blished method of obtaining information from the Government has been discarded altogether. A reply which does not impart the slightest information is given to one question, and with respect to the twenty or thirty questions which follow we are told they have been answered by the answer to the first question. The answer to the first question gives you no information at all, and yet the succeeding questions are spoken of as having been answered by the first. I submit that is a new method of imparting information to this House which possibly has originated in the fertile brain of the Minister of' Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid).
The minister has enunciated another new idea to-night and that is that he will not place within the reach of any hon. member any material which would form the basis for a criticism of the Government. That is an absolutely brand-new idea on the part of the minister. Not only does this Government arrogate to itself the right to make the voters' lists, the right to create the electorate, the right to control the whole election machinery, but it is determined that no facts of any kind shall get into the possession of hon. gentlemen on the Opposition, the object being to render them dumb, to silence criticism. That brand-new idea is one that is worthy of the Minister of Railways. He tells us that no information is to be given about any undertaking in which the people's money is invested. Such an idea as that must be new even to the hardest-shelled Tory on the Government side-that the people of Canada who contribute to the consolidated revenue of the Dominion are to be told that the millions that are taken from their pockets and put into the public treasury shall be spent in any way the Government may think advisable, and that is the end of it, -nobody must rise in this House to ascertain what has become of the money. That
is another splendid principle of this Union Government. It may have been incubating 'for many years in the hearts and heads of hon. gentlemen who are supporting the Tory party, but they, never had the courage- if I can call it by that name-to come out into the open and avow that to be their principle. However we have it intimated now that that is the way things are going to be done in future. Whenever money is required the people will promptly hear about it, and we shall be permitted to vote it; but when it comes to disclosing what has become of the money strict silence is to be maintained. Well, things have been conducted in that way now for a couple of years, and last year we landed into a deficit of $47,000,000 by such a "secret service'' management of the public railways. That deficit represents $6 a head, if not mo're, for every man, woman and child in Canada, for one year's operations of the Canadian National railways. But when it comes to demanding details of that expenditure the doors are shut, the blinds pulled down, and nobody is allowed to hear a whisper of what is going on. I must ask the minister, how much worse must things become before he will condescend to tell the people what is going on? I hold in my hand a copy of the report which was published by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the 15th of March last. Their financial year closed on the last day of De-cember-but on the 15th of March this booklet was published-open, aboveboard, public-showing what the operations of the road had been for the year. The company also announce that they paid 10 per cent dividends to their stockholders and shareholders. Well, this is the kind of operation that suits me best; that is the kind of operation the people of Canada would prefer.
Mr. J. D. REID; Will the hon. member be satisfied with a report equal to, or better, than the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's report?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: A report from the Government with respect to the Canadian National railways disclosing that an ample and efficient service has been given to the country, that every bill has been paid, that a ten per cent dividend has been declared and a lot of money placed in a rest account, and that everything is going full-swing, would certainly be satisfactory to me as one of the shareholders.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Yet the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite at one time declared

that the Canadian Pacific railway would not yield sufficient profits to pay for the axle grease.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am thoroughly Scotch and we are sometimes accused of being stupid, and the hon. gentleman will excuse me for not being able to follow his meaning-I do not see where the point comes in.
Now, let me tell the Government and the Minister of Railways that the moment a suggestion comes to their minds that they have entered upon an enterprise about which they cannot tell the people, that is the clearest possible notice that they should not continue any further in that undertaking,-it is not their business. Because the people of Canada are the shareholders in this business and it is nothing but natural for every shareholder to know what has become of his money-what it is earning and what use is being made of it. You cannot hold shareholders in a company for any considerable length of time unless they are satisfied that the capital which they have invested has been properly expended. It will not do to tell them that it is in the interests of all concerned that the business of the company shall not be disclosed. In like manner, the Government have no right to conceal any information in regard to the operations of enterprises which they are carrying on. If they cannot give the information, they should not be in the business at all. The people have put their money in those enterprises, and they should know what is going on. The minister one day tells us that we own the Canadian Northern; that we own the Grand Trunk Pacific; that we own the-Intercolonial. 1 would like to ask the minister what is the difference, so far as the people are concerned, between the Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and the Intercolonial? Are they not all owned by the people? Did we not pay our money for them all? If we are entitled to know what is going on in connection with the Intercolonial, are we not equally entitled to know what is going on in connection with the management of the other roads and of other Government enterprises? But the minister tells us that it is not in the best interest of the people that we should be given this information. Well, I have already said that if the Government find that they cannot tell the people about any business that they are carrying on, the sooner they get out of it the better, so that the people may manage their business in a more satisfactory w^y.
LMr. Davidson.]
The minister spoke about coal and the manner in which it was purchased. If the coal areas and the coal owners and the coal producers in Nova Scotia had been left alone in 1914 when the war broke out they would to-day be independent of any assistance of this or any other Government. At that time they were well established and were not a burden upon the Government. But what happened? The Government-I suppose quite properly so-took from them all the ships which had been carrying their product to Montreal and further up the river to points where they had established a good market. Then, their men went to the front; [DOT]the amount of coal produced was lessened; their markets went down and they lost their contracts. When the war was over they expected that the Government would give them some consideration. Their ships had been taken in the national interest; their men had thrown down their tools and gone to the front in the national interest. If there was loss to the shareholders or to the workmen engaged in the production of coal in Nova Scotia, it was because of service rendered not merely in the interests of Nova Scotia, but in the interests of Canada, of the Empire, of the world. All that we were asking was that some preference should be given to our own coal merchants so far as the supply of coal to national enterprises was concerned, and at a time when our coal merchants were trying again to get on their feet. But we are told to-night, as we have .always been told, that these producers must compete with those who have the coal right on the spot and who never sacrificed a dollar's worth of ships or gave up any men to the defence of the country at a crucial moment in the war, when ships and men were greatly needed.
As to telling the country what is being paid for coal on the Intercolonial or any of the other Government railways, I see no reason why that should not be done. The prices may differ in different zones; conditions in the far West may be different from those which prevail in Ontario and Quebec. But if the Government will ask for tenders for the coal and pay the lowest price, no fault can be found. The people of the country have a right to know what they are paying for their coal. They must know what the Government are paying for rails, for ties, for everything that goes into the operation of the Government railways. The same is true with regard to Government shipping operations. We must know where e'-ery dollar goes; we must be assured that every precaution is taken to see that a dollar

earns as much when handled by the Government as it would earn it handled by a private concern.
I again complain that the information which is given us dn answer to questions is not the full and complete information that we should get. It is the people who are putting the money into these enterprises; it is the people who want this information. We are the representatives of the people, and the Government are taking a wrong step when they say that it is not in the interests of the country that we should have -this information. If in the future the minister wants to avoid any discussion or any catechizing of this kind, he will give information that is quite properly asked for; be will see that the business which he is carrying on is conducted in a proper -manner and that reports are made whi-ch will give a fair and reasonable account -to the -Canadian people of what is becoming of -their money in the hands of the Government.
Hon. C, C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries): -Mr. Speaker, I am rkther -surprised at the turn which this debate has taken, on the very important question whether our vast sy-sltem of railways, comprising 22,000 miles of line, and the Government Merchant Marine, comprising 63 ships, built and projected, are to -be managed -as heretofore, by the Department of Railways, so far as railways are concerned, and the Department of Marine, so far as the Government ships are concerned. If thes-e enterprises were being managed as -the Intercolonial -railway was so unfortunately managed under various governments from its very inception, I could well understand hon. members opposite asking for details as to the price of coal an-d the price of this, that or the other thing. I take no issue with hon. members when they ask for information which thi-s House has a right to receive from the Government concerning the Government railways and the Government Merchant Marine. But when hon. members get down to details of management and detailed information such as only the operating company can possess in regard to the railways or the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in reference to the ships, this Government adopted the only course-and I am satisfied that it meets with the general approval of hon. members of this House and of the country generally-and that is that the railways and the ships are to be free from 106
political influence. The only way in which that could be done was to adopt the policy that the Government put into force. The Government have given Mr. D. B. Hanna and his board of directors an absolutely free hand as to the management of our vast transcontinental system of railways and also as regards the Government ships. The Government could, of course, continue the same old policy that has prevailed in this country altogether too long; it could have ipade an attempt to manage this vast system of railways along the same political lines as those on which the Intercolonial railway has been managed to the sorrow of the country and with deficits each year. Our vast railway systems would then have been in the political arena; No government could have kept the railways free from political patronage under such conditions. I am sure hon. members will agree that the only chance of success for public ownership and operation of railways and steamships is to adopt and support the course that this Government has adopted, of endeavouring to manage those railways along the same sane, conservative business lines that any private corporation would adopt. The House has a perfect right to ask all about the capital expenditure as regards both railways and ships; it has a perfect right to know also about the profits.
I was a little bit surprised, to speak for a moment particularly regarding the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, to hear the hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) say to-night that the Minister of Marine had not given the members of the House the same information regarding the operation of the ships as a president or general manager of a large private corporation would give to the shareholders. Hon. members will give me credit for having at least some knowledge regarding business matters and the way in which annual meetings are generally presided over. I had the honour to give the members of this House as much detailed information regarding the Canadian Government Merchant Marine fleet as any president or general manager could possibly give the shareholders of any large private corporation. The pages of Hansard will show that when I was speaking on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, I gave the gross profits and the net profits. I stated at that time that those net profits had been arrived at following the usual careful business course of providing for interest on the cost of the ships, depreciation,



insurance, overhead expenses, and all that makes up the difference between the gross and the net profits. The hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough said that I gave only fragmentary information, that I did not give any liabilities. I was careful to give to the House both sides of the balance sheet; I gave on the one side the assets, both fixed and current! I' gave, on the other side, the liabilities, and I showed that, for the first time in the history of any government of this country, nineteen ships that had been in operation for only a portion of the year, had made $1,460,000 net profit, and more than that, that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund a cheque for $500,000. I offered also, with the unanimous consent of the House, to place on the pages of Hansard the open voyages, the closed voyages per ship, showing the profits on the outward voyages and also the profits on the inward voyages. This Government has nothing to conceal from the House; everything is as wide open and frank as it possibly can be. I am sorry that our able chairman did not put the motion^ to the members of the committee that night to ascertain whether this detailed information could be placed on the pages of Hansard or not. If the chairman had done so, I was quite prepared to hand over the detailed statement so that it could appear on the pages of Hansard. But as lion, members opposite seem to think that I was not desirous of doing so, I am ready to-morrow to hand that statement to the leader of the Opposition or to any other bon. member opposite. The Government are proud of the profits, both net and gross, inward and outward, that each one of these ships has made.
The real question before the House is which of the two policies should be adopted. If we are going to manage the railways and the ships by government departments on a purely political-patronage basis, then, of course, the Government will have the say as to who is to be an engineer or a conductor on either a passenger or a freight train; v e shall have all the political influence of the various members of Parliament as to where the coal and provisions are to be bought. I am sure the members of this House will at once come to the only conclusion that they can come to, namely, that there is no possible chance for the ultimate success of a government system of railways or a Government system of ships if they are going to be run along 
political patronage lines. As a member of the Government, I am, of course, heartily in support of the policy of the Government to free the railroads and the ships from political influence and patronage and to have those railroads and ships managed to the best of the ability of the men who are at the head of them with a free hand. I have never written a letter to nor asked a question of Mr. D. B. Hanna or any official of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as to what route a ship will ply upon; I have not asked him how much he has paid for asparagus, or potatoes, or butter, or coal. The Government have something to do besides dipping into the petty details of management. Therefore, we say to Mr. Hanna and those who are managing the ships: All that we want you to do is tO' manage the ships to the very best of your ability; all that Parliament and the Government and the country are looking for is that at the end of the year, if that be at all possible, the figures shall be on the right side. But the management of the railways and of the ships cannot say that this Government or any member of it has interfered with them in the slightest degree.
It has been said to-night by hon. members that my colleague the Minister of Railways and the Government have a desire to withhold from members of this House information that they should have. Let me say at once on behalf of the Government that there is no such desire; that we are perfectly willing to give to Parliament all the information that Parliament ought to have and everything that the Government is aware of. But the Government will not, as the Minister of Railways has stated, inquire from the management of the railways or from the management of the steamship company where they buy their supplies, the names of their stewards, the names of their captains, the names of their engineers, nor where these officers were born, nor where the sugar or the coal was bought. This Government has something to do besides interfering with the able management of either the railroads or the ships. I observe my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. MoMaster) laughs at that, but I want to tell him-


Mr. McMASTER:: A $47,000,000 deficit being claimed as an example of "able" management is somewhat amusing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: While we all regret a deficit of $47,000,000 on the railways, it will be twice $47,000,000 if every hon. member of this House is allowed to dip in his oar and say: I want the coal for the railways bought

from So-and-So, the butter from somebody else, and so on. However, I am not going to deal with the railway problem to-night. I am simply discussing the 'broad principle whether our railroads and ships are to be run by political patronage or in a businesslike way, free from all political influence. I cannot see what fault the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough has to find with the Minister of Railways in regard to his question about the price of coal. The Minister of Railways does not know the price of the coal bought by the railways, nor is he familiar rvith the price paid by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Suppose the Minister of Railways writes to Toronto and finds out the price of coal, what is to stop every member of this House asking for detailed prices on everything that the railways and the steamships buy? I am sure hon. members will agree that if we are to have a ghost of a chance to make public ownership a success in this country we must give the management of our railways and our ships a perfectly free hand.
Before taking my seat, in answer to the statement of my hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) that I did not place before this House such information as is placed before the shareholders of a company, I say that no. business man could give more detailed or more accurate information to a body of shareholders than it was my privilege to place before hon. members of this House a few days ago. I rvould be sorry indeed if the time of the members of this Government was to be taken up with writing to the men who manage our railways and our merchant marine to find out information on such matters as where their insurance is placed and whether they employ this man or that man. On the broad questions of capital expenditure, maintenance of way, deficits, earnings, and such like, every hon. member has a perfect right to seek information, and the Government Is always willing and ready to give it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough has brought a very proper and important matter before the House this evening, and in a very quiet way. We have, as a result, the Minister of Railways getting up and reading a lecture to hon. members on this side of the House on their rights and privileges and as to what questions they are entitled to ask of the Government. He went on to charge hon. members on this side with playing politics, 1061 , ,
with having questions put into their mouths by gentlemen outside this Chamber so that they might make political capital of the information they receive in answeT to those questions. Before dealing with the remarks of the Minister of Railways I wish to correct an error in the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne), and to prevent a false impression from going out to the country. That hon. gentleman stated that the Intercolonial railway was unfortunately mismanaged in the past, irrespective of whatever political party was in power.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Hear, hear.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend says "Hear,, hear." Let us look into this matter for a moment and see if my hon. friend can consistently say "Hear, hear." When I first knew anything about politics a gentleman, Mr. David Pottinger, was manager of the Intercolonial railway, and 1 challenge the Minister of Marine or anybody else to say anything against that man as manager of the Intercolonial during the many years he was in charge. After that, Mr. Brady was general manager of the Intercolonial, with general offices at Moncton. If he mismanaged the railway why *has he been placed in the responsible position of superintendent of the Canadian National railways from Fort William to Sydney and Halifax? Mr. C. M. Hayes wras Mr. Brady's successor as manager of the Intercolonial; and if be mismanaged the Intercolonial, I would ask my hon. friend why, in heaven's name, he was appointed vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, controlling 22,000 miles of railway. My hon. friend's mouth is closed when he attempts to argue that these gentlemen did not properly manage the Intercolonial.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I made no reference whatever to personnel in my remarks about the management of the Intercolonial railway. My remarks were confined entirely to the effects of political influence on the operation of the road, which I say has been a sad blot on public ownership eveT since the Intercolonial was started.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When my hon. friend said that the Intercolonial ivas unfortunately mismanaged, the conclusion was that the general manager of the road must have been the man who was to blame for the mismanagement. He did not say that these people were derelict in their duty, but that is the only conclusion you could draw. When the Minister of Marine rises in his

place in this Chamber and charges that Mr. Pottinger, Mr. Brady and Mr. Hayes did not properly manage the Intercolonial, I "take sharp issue with him. but if true they should not have been retained in the service and given greater responsibilities.
The Minister of Marine then went on to talk about patronage. My hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough had not said a word about patronage; he was not asking for the flesh pots of patronage; not at all; he simply brought to the attention of "the House that proper and reasonable questions had been placed on the Order Paper by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to which they were entitled to an answer, and to which they would receive answer if hon. gentlemen opposite were not afraid to give the facts to the public. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the Minister of Bailways, who has charge of the Canadian National railways, and is therefore able to give the facts to this House and the country, is afraid to do so. The Minister of Marine very courteously said that hon. gentlemen have a perfect right to ask questions. Undoubtedly we have, but hon. gentlemen opposite claim that there is no obligation on them to reply. They maintain it is their privilege to reply or not as they see fit. That, I suppose, is their right, but I for one do not propose to accept such an attitude without protesting. Hon. gentlemen opposite control the purse strings of this country; they are the guardians of the people's money; they take the people's money to the extent of a billion of dollars and place it in defunct railways, and then say: We will not answer your questions concerning operation of said railways. We were told that there was a deficit on the Canadian National railways of $47,000,000 and the Minister of Bailways says we have no right to dip into this little matter. Is $47,000,000 that has been lost in operating these railways, in a way known only to the Government themselves, a little matter?
My hon. friend also took occasion to find some fault with the chairman of the committee because he did not put the motion the other evening as to whether the facts should he put on Hansard and go out to the people of this country. My hon. friend did not make the motion, or I am sure the chairman of the committee would have put the question and the facts would have gone on Hansard. I have no intention of insinuating that the hon. gentleman is not prepared to give that information. He says he is prepared to give it, and I hope he will have an opportunity of placing it on
[Mr. Copp.J
Hansard. It does not do to say: I will give the leader of the Opposition a copy of it, it is the people of this country who want to know the facts. The Minister of Bail-ways says that there is to be a meeting of the management of the Canadian National railways on the 10th of May. Who will be present at that meeting? The ten directors of the railway, I suppose. Whoi will represent the people? The Minister of Bailways will go there to represent 8,000,000 stockholders. The people of this country own the railway, and my hon. friend who goes there to represent 8,000,000 stockholders, informs us that he will come back to Parliament in his capacity as representative of the whole people of Canada on that directorate and arrogate to himselt the position of censor in the submission of information to this House. He says: "I am going to give the people of this country what information I like in regard to the operation of this system, and I will censor that information." Sir, the people of this Dominion have just as much right to inquire into the operations of these railways as any stockholder in any business concern in the country 'has to ask for all the information he desires in connection with the conduct of that business. At a general or annual meeting of any company in this country any stockholder can obtain all the information he asks for in regard to the operations of the directors, and he is at perfect liberty to criticize every ,aot of theirs. And if the shareholders in a business concern enjoy this right, how much more is it the right of the people of Canada, who are the owners of this railway, to ask for and to be given every bit of information they desire in connection with the workings of the railway. .1 want to correct a statement made by the -minister lest a wrong impression may go abroad. I take issue with him, and I say that he does not know the facts in regard to the purchase of or use of co-al when he makes the statement -to this House and through the House to the country that the coal purchased in the province of New Brunswick is not worth half as much as the co-al purchased in No-v-a Scotia. I know I shall have the support of -hon. gentlemen from the province of New Brunswick when I say that -the coal that comes from that part of Canada is known throughout the length and breadth of this country as one of the best steam coals produced in the country, and when my hon. friend says that if the mine-owners of New Brunswick found out what was being paid for coal in Nova

Scotia, the coal in New Bruniswick would cost the same as ithe coal from Nova Scotia, let me tell him that those who operate the companies in New Brunswick have a perfect right to get as much for their coal as the Government is paying for coal elsewhere.
As a member of this House I desire to associate myself entirely with the statement of the hon. member for Arutigonish and Guysborough in- regard to the rights of hon. members of this House. And standing here as ia representative of a large proportion of the people of Canada who are stockholders in the Canadian National railways and the Canadian Merchant Marine, and who provide the .money for the operation of these utilities, I claim the right to all the information which tbo.se people desire to obtain. For my part, I protest strongly and emphatically against the minister's assumption of the right to censor the information which he may give to this House, and I object to. his saying that he will lay on the Table what he likes. The minister talks about the auditors' reports. The people of Canada have a right to know wha/t the auditors have to say in regard to the operation of the railways, and *they ought to have the details of those operations if they desire. The people want to know rwhat they are paying for coal and rails and sleepers; they want to know what the operation pi a public utility costs. Let me say to my hon. friend, who charges us on this side of the House with playing a political game and who talks about patronage, that so far as the coal owners in Nova Scotia wishing to sell coal to the Government, it may not be worse than to have private merchants selling coal to the railways without any information as to what prices are being paid. When .my hon. friend talks /about "playing polities," surely he cannot deny that if in the operation of the railways the game of politics has ever been played it has been played to the limit while he has been Minister of Railways, and by himself.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):: I would not have intervened in this discussion had my genial friend, the Minister of Railways, not referred to a certain most innocent question which I put upon the Order Paper. He got so really serious over that question, as only he can get when occasion demands, as to think that the information asked for would ruin the National railways and the merchant marine of Canada. The idea of asking what the insurance was upon the National railways, how
much was the premium, and whether or not tenders had been called for, was to the mind of the minister a most heinous offence. , If the question I asked, as well as that of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), so perturbed the minister, it is apparent that, in the mind of the minister, any question even as to where a man was born would ' simply disintegrate the whole system of: railways. Let me say to the hon. minister that the question which I innocently put on the Order Paper did not emanate from any one who had been hanging around this building. No one hanging around the building was good- enough to come to me and say, "Do, please, ask this question." Let me tell the minister that the question was conceived in my own mind.


John Dowsley Reid: That surprises me.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Possibly, but- surprising
things happen in this House, and the hon. gentleman has been a member of Parliament long enough to realize tha-t fact. I say in all seriousness that the question I asked was a perfectly fit and proper one. Here you have a government administering two public utilities, the merchant marine and the railways; and you .will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in all things it is only fair that people should take their choice when they pay their money. But in this case the people of Canada do not take their choice when they pay their money. According to the doctrine of the minister they are bound to pay their money for something of which they know absolutely nothing, because he refuses to give the particulars asked for. Is it to be said for one moment that the people of Canada, who are to put up deficits, as they have done already, ior public ownership, are to be told that while they are bound to pay their money they must expect no information in regard to the details of the operation of the utilities in respect of which they pay that money, and that as regards the question as to whether or not tenders have been called for they must remain in the dark? In effect, they are told by the minister; So far as information is concerned, we will give what we like and give it when we like, and the stockholders must be satisfied with this. The hon. gentleman takes refuge behind the fact that he will have auditors, more auditors, and super-auditors again. I do not care a button about the auditors so far as this phase of the question is concerned. What I want to know, and what the people want to know, is whether or not large payments are being properly

made, and whether supplies are being obtained at the best prices going. The minister has laid down a doctrine, and I do not know whether his colleagues are absolutely standing by it.
I did notice in the speech of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballan-tyne) that he was rather edging away and getting on the other side of the road. I am quite satisfied that he was not prepared to go down the road absolutely with the Minister of Railways when that hon. gentleman said:	" I will give such information to
this House as I deem best to give; no more shall I give and no farther shall I go." The Minister of Marine was surprised at the turn the debate took. There are more people and more members than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who object to the doctrine that the people of Canada, the stockholders of two wonderful, great, huge national undertakings are to be told that " I, the Minister of Railways will give such information as I think well; I will withhold such information as I think proper and the people of Canada will be entitled to the remnant." That is a marvellous doctrine. It is so marvellous that I noticed coming into the House in double quick time after this policy had been laid down in the most perfervid way by the Minister of Railways, that master of political strategy, my smiling friend, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). He came in at once, he came down the steps gently and gingerly and seated himself beside the Minister of Railways. I fancy the following conversation took place:	" Don't
you think you have gone rather too far?" "No," says the Minister of Railways and Canals, " that is the way to treat 'em." " Oh, no," says the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in that suave way he has, " don't you think it would be better not to say it so loud, but to keep it under the hat a little? We may do it all the same, but don't give the thing away." "No," says the Minister of Railways and canals, " none of that for me, I am used to the good old Tory way-hit 'em on the head and knock 'em down. We are not for the people, the people are for us."
And so on with the little colloquy. Then the Minister of Immigration and Colonization says:	" Although for Union Government you have gone pretty far and you have committed us pretty deeply, still, for the rest of the evening, be just as quiet as you can." And the Minister of Railways has been quiet ever since. I know that took place; I could feel it in my bones the

moment the minister entered; I know it cannot be denied.
I do not in. the least -agree with that doctrine of the Minister of Railway -and Canals. The hon. gentleman talks about certain particulars and he -says that certain joint stock companies do not give those particulars. That is one thing; but when to-day you are managing a company with 8,000,000 stockholders composed of the people of Canada, you have a right to let them know -mything that they ought to- know in connection with the enterprise and to say to these people: "We will give you a full statement, our receipts, our expenses, our tenders, our bids, what we buy and what we have paid for the things we buy, and we will lay every card upon the table". They should do this so that the people may know if they are being treated justly and may feel assured that there is absolutely nothing to be kept back from this great mass of stockholders for whom I speak.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: that." If the answer to individual questions .are to be given, who is to defend on behalf of the company? Is the minister to defend? The minister has not control of the company. Once you put him in control we are right back again to the old system of departmental management, the old patronage system. If the minister cannot control, if he has nothing to say as to the management -and that is the only way it can be run- how are you going to put him on his defence day by day for the conduct of the company? In a word, you cannot. You cannot put the company on its defence in this House day by day as to individual acts and management, unless you have somebody in this House who is competent to answer for the company, and if he is competent to answer then he must have something to say as to the management and daily operations of this great system. Furthermore if the directors must, through the mouth of the Department of Railways, be called upon from week to week and from day to day to expose to the whole country each individual act of railway operation-thousands every day, in fact thousands every hour-if it is compelled, I say, to expose these matters to the whole country and to its great competitor or competitors in this country, then would anybody suggest for a moment that it could meet those competitors successfully? Does its competitor have to do that? Is any shareholders of the Canadian Pacific at liberty to frame an inquiry and demand an answer from day to day from the Board of Directors or from the general manager, as toe "Why did you do so-and-so- in such a case? Why you let such a tender to such a man and not to some one else? Why did you dismiss John Smith? Why you paid so much for butter, and so much for eggs? Why did you do one thing instead of doing another?" Certainly they are not. They are not compelled to disclose to the Canadian National Railway management the individual facts as to the management of their road and the conduct of its operation. If that is the case, how are you going to fasten on the Canadian National system the disadvantage under which its competitor does not labour? So it must *be clear that the plan cannot be worked. Once you follow that principle, you have done away with corporate management altogether, and you expose the management, whatever it may 'be, to conditions under which it cannot succeed.
Now what is there, that in justice and fairness to the system, and in full compliance with the undoubted requirements of the people as stockholders of the road, can 
be done? The Minister of Railways has said that as respects questions that may be asked from time to time the Government will have to take the responsibility of saying whether those questions are such inquiries into the operation of the road as make them for the time being the concern of the operating board and consequently, not in the public interest to answer in this House-the Government must take the responsibility of saying whether such questions are in that class and can be answered or not. The minister has also very clearly said that there will be presented to this House as representatives of the stockholders of the system, an annual report in complete and full detail similar to-and in detail better-than the annual report of the Canadian Pacific. That report will come to us audited by the auditors of the road, audited by the auditors appointed by the Government, and the minister suggests tonight a third board of auditors on which the department of the Auditor General of Canada will be represented, to consist as iwell of two others appointed by the Department of Railways and the Department of Finance respectively. In such form and with such assurances and credentials, the report of the system for the year preceding will come to this House,-every act and every expenditure vouched for and exposed to the gaze of every hon. member of this House. When that report comes, there is no reason that I can think of why everything disclosed by it should not be sub-10 p.m. ject to investigation either on the part of the Public Accounts Committee or on the part of a special committee that may be appointed by the House for the purpose. If that is done then undoubtedly nothing is denied the representatives of the people of Canada with respect to our system of railways that is given the representatives of the shareholders of any other company in respect of their properties. Nothing is denied the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways that the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific have; and indeed greater facilities will be given for the purposes of investigation, because no such facility as exists in connection with the Committee of Parliament can possibly belong to any committee of shareholders looking into the management of a private system. /
I have sought to lay before the House what seemed to me to be the line that could be followed to meet on the one hand the requirements of the system as a great business enterprise, to meet on the one hand

the essential safeguards that corporation [DOT]directors must have if they are to have any chance whatever of making their system succeed; and to meet on the other hand the undoubtedly justifiable demands of the representatives of the people to be informed fairly and fully in due course of all that concerns the taxpayers of Canada. By this method all that is secured without interfering with the management from day to day, and without entailing vast expense land untold labours upon the clerical staff, the directors and all concerned, as well as without fastening on the road those shackles that would involve its disablement, if not indeed actual disaster.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, I am under the disadvantage of not having heard the first stages of the debate. I came into the House just in time to hear that remarkable declaration of policy on the part of the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) which has been briefly and succinctly described by the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). The minister proposes, in respect to information which is requested by Parliament, to give to the House whatever he thinks proper; whatever he and his colleagues think should not be communicated they will not give to the House, no matter how much money may be involved in the transaction. It is a new doctrine; it is a startling doctrine. In some respects it is not quite startling to me, because the events of a year ago have prepared me for it.
A good many years ago, when men like John A. Macdonald, Alexander Mackenzie, Edward Blake and Richard Cartwright were in Parliament, there was placed on the statute book of Canada an Act which was held to be one of tremendous importance. The purpose of that Act, commonly known as the Audit Act, was to demand on behalf of the people of Canada an accounting for every dollar that was spent of the people's money. There was no question as to the necessity of the Act; there was no question as to its propriety. For decades that Act remained on the statute book and was carried out in all its fulness. Every minister and every official who expended a dollar of the people's money had to render an account in detail. That account had to pass through the hands of the Auditor General and had to be set forth in the Auditor General's report, and the minister or official had to appear if necessary before the Pub-lie Accounts Committee and stand crossexamination upon it. That is the law of Canada regarding everything-except these particular transactions in respect to the railways.
I cannot say that I am surprised at the doctrine laid down by my hon. friend tonight, because when the Canadian National Railway Bill was before the House a year dgo I ventured to make what I thought was a very modest request. I thought that they had omitted something from the Bill-you know, they do omit some things from the Bills and we on this side occasionally have to remind them. I thought they had forgotten to put in a provision that these expenditures should come under the Audit Act, so I reminded them of it and ventured to move an amendment which would have the effect of correcting the omission. But they said: No, we will have nothing to do with the Audit Act.
Now, there was a deficit last year of $47,000,000 in the operation of the Canadian National railways. Whether that was necessary or not I shall not stop to discuss. We are not now discussing the question of the management of the road; we are discussing the question of giving an account to the people for public money that has been spent. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: We admit that there has been a loss of $47,000,000, but you will be good enough to ask no questions about it, because it is none of your business. That is not too strong a statement on my part; it is absolutely within the four corners of what has happened. It is a startling statement, to men who have been accustomed to the methods of carrying on public business which have prevailed in the past.
Well, what is the reason given for this extraordinary decision? The ministers tell us that as respects these railways-and I suppose it will apply also to the Department of Marine-if you treat expenditures in connection with the railways as you treat other expenditures, why that brings them under political management. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) said that these things could not be managed under a department of government. The argument is that if they are managed under a department of government the management becomes political and partisan, and patronage enters into it. That is the argument-is the statement of hon. members opposite, not mine. Well, if that is true, what follows? If everything that is managed under a department of government-I	am quoting the

Minister of the Interior-is political and partisan and carries with it patronage, then all the rest of the business of Canada as managed by departments of the Government comes under that condemnation.
I open the Auditor General's report, and just where I happen to open it I find the details of expenditures of the Department of Agriculture. Page after page is filled with details showing every item of expenditure-some items amounting to only two or three dollars; some involving large amounts. But they are all set forth in detail; they all go to the Auditor General; they are all subject to examination by the Public Accounts Committee. But we are told that we must not do the same with the items of railway expenditure, because if you do that -you make the management of the railways political. Well, if the submission of the railway accounts to the Auditor General and to the Public Accounts Committee makes them political, then clearly all these other expenditures are political; they are all being managed politically, according to the argument of my hon. friend.
I turn over a few pages, just at random, and I come to the (Customs Department. Here are many pages setting forth in detail the expenditures of that Department. But we are told: You must not ask the railway people to do -that, because that would make the railway operations political. Does the submission of detailed accounts of expenditures of the Customs Department to the Auditor General and to the Public Accounts Committee make the administration of the Customs Department political? That is the inference to toe draw from the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite.
It is the business of an Opposition sometimes to be critical, and I think that sometimes they ought to offer constructive suggestions. In the few remarks that I shall make I want to try to toe constructive. I want to help the Minister of Fnance (Sir Henry Drayton) who, I am sure, is having some anxious moments about the manner in which he shall obtain the (wherewithal to meet his coming Budget. I want to show him how he can save a little money. If it is possible and proper to get along without the intervention of any department in connection with the management of the Government railways; if it possible to get along without the Public Accounts Committee, why in the world do we need the departments for managing other things? The Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) has set forth in the Auditor General's

report many pages of details of expenditures made in connection with his Department. They are political, according to the argument of my hon. friends, because they are being managed toy a department. Why do we have the large staff which is under the Minister of Immigration, with all the attending expense? Why not turn the department over to this Toronto board and have -them manage it? Excellent men, the members of this board are; I am not for an instant questioning their ability of their good intentions. But if they are capable of managing this vast business, and if there is no need for the intervention of a department in that connection, (why not go down the list of departments and turn the whole thing over to them? You are wasting money; you are keeping a lot of men at work rendering detailed accounts of transactions which must be political, according to the contention of -hon. gentlemen opposite. All the departments are .squandering -time and money, they say, in the carrying on of work which could better be done by this railway board in Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman not recognize the difference between a service conducted by a department which is not a purely -business enterprise and not competing with other business enterprises, and such a system as the Canadian National railways, which must so compete?


William Stevens Fielding: If the system of public ownership of the Canadian National railways can only be conducted by concealing all the detailed facts from the people, then that is the best evidence that the system is wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Nobody suggests that.


William Stevens Fielding: Vast sums of money
are spent in connection (with the administration of postal services. Go across -the street and you will find an army of men engaged in preparing details of expenditures to go before the Public Accounts Committee. What are you wasting time on that for? If hon. gentlemen's arguments are logical; if it is necessary to conceal from the public all the details of the vast expenditure in connection with railways, then it is well to conceal the details of the small transactions, comparatively speaking, carried out in connection with other departments. From time immemorial the foundation of the carrying on of Canadian public business has been the principle that for every dollar of public money that is spent an account shall be given, and it is provided in the law

that an account shall be rendered to the Auditor General, and submitted if called for to the Public Accounts Committee. If the Government cannot conduct the business of the Government railway in that way; if that business must be conducted with secrecy; if the facts have to be kept from the public, that is the best possible evidence that the system is wrong and should not be continued.


Matthew Robert Blake: I should like to say a few words on a matter of national importance to the country and also a matter of international notice. A message has been received to-night that the Winnipeg " Falcons " have won the world's championship at the Olympic Hockey Match by a score of thirteen to one.


Frank S. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into a discussion on the railway question to-night, and it is not my intention now to make any extended remarks. I simply want to put the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) right. They spoke of what an awful mess the political management of the Intercolonial railway was; how bad it was. In the report of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton)' the Drayton-Acworth report, he states:
Whatever question there may be as to the propriety of endeavouring to earn interest on capital, it will hardly be questioned that the line ought to be so managed as at least to earn operating expenses, including therein a proper allowance for taxes. And even ignoring the early history of the undertaking, and considering merely the years from 1888-1916, during which the greatest advance has taken place In Canada, and the traffic of Canadian railways has shown the greatest increase, the Intercolonial has paid no taxes and still not earned operating expenses. During this period the total operating deficits reported amounted to $11,188,885.50. The total operating surpluses amounted to $1,651,239.73. In addition, however, there was, in the years 1912-16, an amount of $3,046,406.86 charged to working expenses and devoted to renewals, which, under the accounting methods in force before that date, would have been credited to surplus. Adding together these two latter figures, and deducting them from the deficit, we find that in the twenty-eight years from 1889-1916 there was an accumulated deficit on operation of $6,491,232.91.


Mr. PARENT:: How many years?


Frank S. Cahill: Twenty-eight years. The
Minister of Railways told the House that for this year the deficit on the Intercolonial was something over $4,000,000, or an amount equal to the deficits on the Intercolonial
for a period of eighteen years previously. The result under political management, which the Minister of the Interior holds up as something to be got away from, is as I have stated; but the minister prefers the system of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) who appoints his friends to run this railway by a secret method, in the dark, where the light cannot get in. I am glad to hear the Minister of Railways say that he is going to give us a real statement.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: When?


Frank S. Cahill: Before his Estimates pass. -I am taking that for granted. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) tells us that that statement will contain all things that it is proper for us to know. I will tell the Minister of the Interior that we shall be the judges of what we believe it is proper for us to know, and when we are on the Estimates, we shall take care of that phase of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I think it is important that the country should clearly understand the amazing doctrine that the Government has put forward this evening as regards public ownership, especially as the Government prides itself somewhat on having gone in for public ownership on a scale that no other government in the history of this country has attempted or even thought of. Unless I am completely mistaken, the significance of all that has been said by the Minister of Railways, the Minister of Marine and the Minister of the Interior, has been to the effect that with the extension of government ownership, there is to be, not an increase of publicity, but a diminution of publicity in regard to matters pertaining to operations.


Mr. CALDER:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
any of the hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred if that is not what was said.


Arthur Meighen: No, the very opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, I shall have to leave the country to read the debate for itself: I have stated what I understood all the ministers to say. Take the remarks of the Minister of the Interior. He said that when we were dealing with enterprises of limited scope, it was all very well to have a minister answerable to Parliament who would give detailed information in

regard to the business that was being carried on-


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is
making a very poor inference from my remarks, if that is the way he took down what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again, I must say to the House that if any hon. member will take the trouble to look at Hansard to-morrow, I think he 'will find that the expression the Minister of the Interior used was "enterprises of limited scope," and in that connection he referred particularly to the Intercolonial railway; he said that it was all right as regards enterprises of limited scope for a minister to come down and give to Parliament a detailed account, but when we got beyond these "enterprises of limited scope," in other words when we got into these vast undertakings in which this Government has landed the country, then we were to have something different; we were to have corporate management as private business enterprises were conducted.


Arthur Meighen: I said that it was all right to be answerable in those cases which are of limited scope in respect to purchases or matters of operation from day to day, but I never suggested-in fact I said the very contrary-that there was any detail that should not ultimately come down or be ascertainable by members of this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has an unfortunate manner of stating his views in a way that conveys one impression, and then of taking exception to the impression that his remarks convey.


Arthur Meighen: That is precisely what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I
wish to make clear is this. As I have understood all the ministers who spoke this evening, their remarks have been to the effect that inasmuch as these enterprises are so large, we can expect less in the way of detailed information; that there must be more and more of secrecy in the management of these great undertakings.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has said this evening. Parliament heretofore has had the right to take account of the public expenditure of the different departments in detail. His remarks were called forth simply because

the impression which he, along with other members on this side, received, was that the Government did not propose to bring down in detail in future in regard to these enterprises the particulars that were given heretofore in regard to other departments of the Government. Here is something which the people of this country should clearly understand, namely, that as regards government ownership, as regards the management of government-owned enterprises, the people are to expect less and less by way of information, and their representatives in this House are to have less and less in the way of right to inquire of the ministry particulars or details in regard to these concerns owned by the people of the country. So long as that is understood the people will the better be able to judge of the wisdom of the new policies. It is important to know-and I think the debate has helped to bring out the fact-that as regards the future, the people of Canada are to have less in the way of information and their representatives in Parliament less in the way of privilege or right to inquire respecting the conduct of businesses which are supposed to be owned by the people. The Minister of the Interior said-and his remark was very significant-that while the Government would bring down a report somewhat in the nature of the report made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Parliament or any committee of Parliament would have a right to investigate everything disclosed by that report. I think I have reported my hon. friend correctly in that regard.


Arthur Meighen: That is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But what about
the things that are not disclosed in that report? That is just exactly what we want to get at through the questions we are asking.


Arthur Meighen: If they have to dio with the company, the hon. gentleman will have a right to information as to those also. Is the hon. member satisfied?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is that it should be a matter of principle that there is nothing connected with the properties that the people of Canada own that the people's representatives in this Parliament should not have a right to inquire into, not at one particular time, but at all times. That is a principle which the people of this country will expect to see respected in this Parliament. If

Government ownership is to mean that there is to be less and less in the way of publicity, a good many who have been advocating Government ownership will think twice before they continue their advocacy. I ask the ministry what is there that can be done, if it is done in an honest and straightforward way, that will suffer from publicity? What is there to be feared from publicity?
Mr. RIOHiARDISON:	Nothing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The more extensive a business becomes the greater is the need of publicity.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The vaster an organization the greater the need of publicity. I say that the ministry is heading .in the wrong direction when they seek to stifle the giving of information. Their aim should 'be to encourage wider and wider publicity in regard to public affairs.


James Alexander Calder: I had not the
slightest intention of taking part in this debate, but the statements made by two or three hon. gentlemen opposite are such that as a member of the Government I find it necessary to state what my position is in regard to this matter.
In the first place let me say that the imaginary conversation which took place between myself and the 'Minister of Railways did not take place at all. As a matter of fact, while 'I was sitting here on the minister's left I did not discuss with him at all the matter that is now under discussion by the House.
'Some hon. MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


James Alexander Calder: Hon. gentlemen may question my word, but I desire to assure them that I had some other matters to discuss with the Minister of Railways.
I thoroughly agree with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that so far as the 'business management of the Canadian National Railway system is concerned, every opportunity and every facility should be provided to this House to examine into every transaction. Everything that the management do may be brought under review, but there is a proper time when that should be done. The leader of the Opposition referred to criticising the conduct of different departments. Oh yes, but when is the time for that. When are the public accounts submitted to the House; when do those public accounts go to the Public Accounts Committee of this House?
-not until after the fiscal year is closed, and then all the work of these departments comes under review. I am rather inclined to think that there are some hon. gentlemen opposite who are trying to create a condition, and to bring about a state of affairs in this country that will not be favourable towards the cause of public ownership. They wish to have all the officials of the Canadian National Railways come here and expose all the details of their business to the Public Accounts Committee from day to day for a period of say six months. Does any hon. gentleman think that such procedure would be for the benefit of public ownership in this country? I say it would not. I say that the business for the year should first be completed and closed by those who are responsible for the conduct of that business, and then when it is completed it will come before this House in full detail and every opportunity will be afforded to hon. members on 'both sides of this House to examine every item pertaining to the conduct of that business. If the men whom we have placed in responsible positions in the management of that business are not carrying out their duties, then the responsibility will rest upon this House and the Government of this country. But that is not what hon. gentlemen opposite want.
Mr. '0 A HIRE:	Speak for yourself.


James Alexander Calder: I am speaking for the Opposition. They ask that from day to day while the business is being carried on, they should have the privilege, not merely of asking questions, but of bringing these men here and putting them on the stand and obtaining information from them before the year's business is concluded. The Government takes the opposite view. We take the stand that that would not be good business, that it would not be in the interests of the National railways or the cause of public ownership in this country. We take the ground that the men who have been made responsible for the conduct of these railways should he permitted to close their year's business, just as is the case with any other corporation. And when they have closed their year's business, they will prepare their statement in detail, and bring it down to this House. That statement will be placed on the Table and referred to a committee of this House where hon. gentlemen may scrutinize and inquire into every dollar's worth of expenditure that has been made. That is all we ask; nothing more, and nothing less.


John Howard Sinclair: The question that gave rise to this discussion referred to matters that were closed in 1919. The Government refused to answer a question in regard to business that had closed on December 31, 1919.


James Alexander Calder: I understand that the annual meeting of the company will be held very shortly, and that the annual report will be submitted at that meeting. The annual report will then be submitted to this House, and before the House prorogues it will have opportunity of doing just what hon. gentlemen opposite have asked. There is a time for everything, and that time will come. Hon. gentlemen will have the fullest opportunity to satisfy their wishes with regard to every expenditure that has been made in connection with the Canadian National1 railways during the past year-
The point I desire to make is briefly this: There is no desire and no intention on the part of the Government to burk inquiry; none whatever. That report will be laid on the Table, and this House will have the fullest opportunity to inquire into every dollar's worth of expenditure that has been made by the Canadian National railways during the past year. What more could hon. gentlemen ask? Instead of that, it is asked that day by day, while the expenditures are going on, a hundred questions with regard to the conduct of the business of the National railways should he answered by the Government. We take the view that that is not good business, that it is not in the interests of the Canadian National railways. That does not mean that we are trying to burk inquiry, that we do not wish to let the light of day in on what is taking place in connection with the, Canadian National railways. It amply means that there will be a time when the fullest opportunity will be presented to Parliament to inquire into every detail of the work of the Canadian National railway system.


Andrew Ross McMaster: While I listened to the remarks delivered by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder), I was reminded of the comparisons that we used to see in the grammar books-autocratic, less autocratic, least autocratic. The Minister of Railways, laying aside his usual geniality for the moment, assumed this position: We, the Government, and I, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Public

Works, will decide what information to give the House. If I do not think it wise to give the House certain information, I will not give it that information. That was softened down a good deal by the remarks of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen).


An hon. MEMBER:: The Minister of Marine.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, not the Minister of Marine; I shall deal With marine matters afterwards. I do not wish to mix Land and water at the present time. I am referring to the remarks of the Minister of the Interior, and incidentally I may congratulate that hon. gentleman on bi.s speech to-night. I was pleased to observe that he did not say an unkind or ungenerous thing about the Opposition in the whole course of his remarks. He was somewhat Less autocratic than the Minister of Railways. Then we had the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) who rose and said, "Perish the thought of secrecy"-


James Alexander Calder: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -"Perish the thought of keeping anything back at the proper time and place; you shall not only receive what the Minister of Railways may wish to- give you, but I can .assure you that everything will he thrown open to the light of day; until then, however, in order that the management may not be hampered, a certain amount of reserve must be maintained." That, I think, is a proper characterization of the speeches we have heard from the other side to-night. Now, let us, in considering this matter, get down to the real facts. We have two companies, one to manage the railways, and one to manage ships. In fact, if I mistake not, I saw in the Canada Gazette the other day that every single ship constituted a separate company. So. that we may have sixty-three different companies to manage the Canadian merchant marine. What are the real facts? These companies are merely species or kinds of machinery. The people of Canada are the real owners of these organizations, and unless we have departed from the principles of British Con&tit u ti on a 1 i sm, the executive committee of this House, the Cabinet, is responsible to (this House and to the people for the conduct of these organizations; and the people, I take it, have the right to inquire into everything in connection with them. What is the information that is sought? The Minister of Marine said we must not give our attention to these little

details, such a.s the asparagus and the sugar which are bought for the ships. I suppose his captains are so successful that they are now given asparagus ; but we must not bother with the asparagus and the sugar and the coal. Petty details of that sort we must leave to the management. The Minister of Immigration said: We will give you all the information which is given in regard to, other departments of the Government. He shakes his head, but that is what I understood him to say. The difference between the position he takes in regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the position in regard to the Department of Railways is this, that we have the right, in connection with all the other departments, to ask questions from day to day if we like about these other departments, and the Government is bound to answer them. But in regard to the railways a different principle has been asserted. And if the doctrine of the Government is sound in respect of these two great spending departments, that they can withhold information, then we have departed from the principles of the British constitution, and that is what makes this debate of such paramount importance. If the position assumed toy this Government is persisted in, that they have the right at their own sweet will to withhold, even for a time-, information as regards any great spending department, them we have departed from the principles of British constitutionalism, because one of the prime principles of British contsitutional practice is that there shall be in the House members of the Government who from their places- in the House must from time to time, and when the House asks it, give information concerning the departments of which they are in control. The Minister of the Interior said: "If you take that view, then there must be a minister in the House prepared to answer for the Department of Railways." I say, certainly there must be in the House a minister prepared to answer for the National railways, and the fact that the Government is attempting to get away from this primary obligation by creating a company is a tendency which this House should put a stop to immediately; because I consider, and I believe the people .will consider, thait it will constitute a very dangerous precedent. There must be an adherence to British practice. After all, we have been taught in this country to regard British responsible constitutional government as the highest development so far known in the art of self-government, and
one of the great principles of that system is that 'there must be a minister of the Grown ;n the House responsible to the representatives of the people. Have we not prided ourselves in the past on the fact that whereas the President of the United States, by the constitution of that great country, surrounded 'himself by advisers who had no seats either in- the House of Representatives or in the Senate, our system was such that the Prime Minister of this country had to select advisers who had seats in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, in order that those men might come in direct contact with the representatives of the people, and be prepared to answer their just questions. Now, what is the argument made by the defenders df this new system on the- other side of the House? As I understand it, it is this: The new administration of these great depart-mentis carry on business which is not primarily the business of the Government, and they must be allowed to conduct that business in a way which wall enable them to meet the competition of privately owned .companies. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: We must be put on an equality in this regard with the privately owned companies, and if you insist on knowing everything that goes on, then we shall be placed at a disadvantage. Is there anything very sound in that argument? I do>
not think there is. I do. not believe that the great competitor of the Canadian National railways, the Canadian Pacific railway, has ,to learn, through questions asked in this House, what the Canadian Government .railways are paying for coal, or ties, or rails. I believe that without doubt the Canadian Pacific railway have a sufficient number of branches and sufficient sources of information all over the country to be able to get that information without having recourse to questions asked by members in this House.
, Mr. CASGRAIN: They are better organized than the Canadian National railways.
. Mr. CALDER: Will the hon. member (allow me ia question that goes to the crux .of the situation? Who. buys the coal, and who is responsible in that matter? It is pot the Minister of Railways. The Minister of Railways does not decide upon these contracts; it is the management of the system that does that. The hon. gentleman, I am sure, can distinguish between the exercise of authority by the Minister .of Railways and by the management of the company.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am opposed to the
system because I think it is absolutely unconstitutional. It is absolutely dangerous that, a minister, when asked a question about a great spending department, of which he is nominally the head, or is regarded by the people of the country as the head, should refuse to give the information which that question calls for. When I say that the minister is at the head of his department the ton. the Minister of Colonization and Immigration shakes his head. All I have to say is that under our constitutional practice he should be the head. If there is a deficit we hold him responsible. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been as proud as a peacock about the profits he said his boats had made. He takes it as a cause of justifiable pride. I wish for the sake of my country that the Minister of Railways would show the same kind of pride. This Government is being blamed for the deficits on the government-owned railway. If you are going to have responsible government you cannot slough off your responsibility on phantom companies which have no real existence.


John Dowsley Reid: In the $47,000,000 deficit there is included some $15,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific which is still a privately owned corporation and which loss was caused by the Opposition building that railway.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister says that this is a privately owned company. He is the receiver of that privately owned company and as the receiver he is responsible for the way it is carried on. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want to have government ownership of railways the Government must be responsible.


James Alexander Calder: As I understand it, the
hon. gentleman advocates that the Government' itself, through the minister, should undertake the complete operation of the National system.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I never said anything of the sort. What I do say is that if you are going to have government ownership you cannot get away from the fact that the Government is ultimately responsible. How you shall arrange to conduct the details of your business is something that I am not considering to-night but we all want the Government railways to succeed because if the Government railways do not make a better showing in the future than they have in the past it will be a sorry financial outlook for Canada. Whatever scheme you inaugurate or carry out, whether it be a gen-

eral manager having a large share of ultimate responsibility to the minister, whether it be the phantom companies which you have created of which the managers and directors are your creatures, you will be regarded as finally responsible and you must be regarded as responsible to Parliament and the country.


James Alexander Calder: Wooild the hon. gentleman, under the scheme that he advocates, approve of the idea that the Minister of Railways should ultimately decide as to what coal should be bought and at what price?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes. If we are going to keep up our constitutional practice, in the long run, he must decide.
Mr. J. D. REID Then he will have to run the whole show.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will be generous if
you want to cathecise me?
Mr. MEIGHEN That is. a pretty generous admission to make.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The point I want to
make is that under our system of responsible government the minister ultimately has to be responsible. It is quite true that he might leave to a general manager, as the minister would leave to an experienced and faithful deputy, the decision in a great number of points, but in this House he must speak, and be prepared to answer questions for the railway administration. If you have not got that, you have not got responsible government. Of course you may have government ownership but you have not government control. If you carry out your system to the logical conclusion you hand over the railways, which do not belong to you but which belong to the people of the country, to an irresponsible board. Either the board is responsible or it is irresponsible. If it is responsible, it has to be responsible to some one. It is responsible to -the Minister of Railways and Canals in the case of railways and to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the case of ships.
That has been one argument and I think I have disposed of it. The next argument is that if you maintain responsible government you maintain the old system of patronage, graft and political pull. That does not follow. The Minister of Justice conducts an important department. He has no phantom company to shove off his responsibility upon. Is it to be supposed that the Minister of Justice, in making his appointments of judges, is merely influenced by partisan considerations. I do not think

anybody pretends that. I can not admire a fugitive and cloistered virtue, and the Government will not be able to get any credit in the country if they endeavour to place themselves in such a position as to make it impossible to exercise patronage. To resist temptation is virtue, but sometimes it is virtuous to flee from temptation. But I return rather to politics and leave the field of theology. Let me sum up by saying that if you are going to maintain the old traditions of responsible government you have to be responsible for what your board! of directors do and in regard to- any company you may form you should be prepared-aye, you should be glad-to answer every question that is put to you. For instance, is it of interest to the people of Canada to know where the coal is bought for the railway, whether the coal was bought by tender or otherwise and whether the lowest market price was paid? Surely that is of prime importance to the people. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries prided himself somewhat upon the statement which he had given to the House and which he said was as full and complete a statement as he would have given as president of some large company to its shareholders. The people of this country, or their representatives in this House, are in a very different position from shareholders. The shareholder in the ordinary company has inherited, or has more likely, bought, his shares. If he is not satisfied with the management he sells out, sometimes at a loss and sometimes at a gain. But the people of Canada cannot sell out their shares in these phantom companies which have been created. They have to reap the benefit in the case of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who says there has been a benefit and they have to suffer a loss in the case of the Minister of Railways who says there has been, as no doubt there has been, a serious loss. The people of Canada have to bear the loss or to take advantage of the gain. Therefore they are in a different position from ordinary shareholders and being in a different position-being shareholders, so to speak, by constraint; being forced to be shareholders- they have infinitely more right to information than the ordinary shareholder has.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I did not intend to take part in this debate but it has consumed so much time that I thought I would be justified in giving utterance to a few words. Last year when the Canadian National .Railway system was before the House different views were expressed by hon. gentlemen on both 107
sides as to what the future would be of this new organization that would have the management of the Government railroads. We on this side entertained grave apprehensions as to the results which would follow. Some people expressed the fear that in doing as we did we abrogated constitutional rights, that we abolished the inalienable right-as it might be said-of the people's representatives to investigate the affairs of a big public department and ascertain how the people's money was being expended.
Sir, to-night we have had a very sad situation revealed. The exact conditions with respect to the birth of this "child" of last year has been revealed. This offspring of the Government, the Canadian National railways, has been brought into the world, and what do we find? That we have created a body but that it is a body without a soul. We cannot find exactly who is responsible for this "child" and when we ask for information we are told that the facts must bfe kept secret or otherwise it would mean the ruin of the whole organization and it would be useless for the Government to longer continue administering these railways. I have one question to ask the Minister of Railways. He states that later on we shall be furnished with a detailed statement as to the operation of the different railways and then we shall ascertain exactly what we want to know. Well, Sir, I submit that these details are available at the present moment and for this reason: On the 30th of last March the Minister of Railways asked to submit -a statement to the House and he used these words, "I desire to place before the House a statement dealing with the operation of the Canadian National railways for the calendar year 1919." Further on in his speech we find this item:


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I am not going, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the debate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman
would be in order in making a reference to a previous debate but not in discussing it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and I simply wish to state this fact: On the 30th of Mjarch last
11 p.m. we were given by the minister a statement regarding the cost of operation of the Government railways, including items with respect to maintenance and expenditures for rolling stock, and fhe minister even announced what was to be done for the ensuing year and he said that the details would be available when the



House went into committee. Now the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) has asked for certain information which.he specifically stated related to the railway operations for the year 1919. I would ask the minister why that information is not available to-night in view of the elaborate statement which he gave to the House on the 30th March last and which occupied seven or eight pages of Hansard. If the minister was able on that occasion to present a statement showing the expenditures under the different headings in connection with the year's railway operations he must have had at that time the information which is now desired. I await an answer from the minister on that point.
Mr. SPEAKERThe minister would not be in order in answering-the hon. member; he has exhausted his right to speak. If the minister were speaking, he might, with his consent, be interrogated, hut not since he has concluded his speech and resumed his seat.


Mr. F. S. SCOTT (South Waterloo):: Like several other hon. gentlemen who have spoken I had not thought of taking any part in this debate. But I have followed the discussion very closely and I am of the opinion that the method being followed by the Government in the administration of these railways is in the right direction. On the other hand if the course which has been advocated to-night by hon. gentlemen here opposite were followed it would indeed be unfortunate for public ownership in Canada. The first, test it would appear to me that should be applied to the proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite is this: we have in the Canadian Pacific a very large company which has been splendidly managed and conducted. If the suggestion were to be made to the directors of that company that all the various items of expenditure connected with the carrying on of that great enterprise should be brought before the House of Commons and discussed in detail, I am sure the Board of Directors would be the first to say that they would not be ahle to successfully carry on the undertaking.
The constitutional question has been raised in connection with this matter and it has been emphasized by the hon. member foT Brome (Mr. McMaster). I am no authority on constitutional practice, but it seems to me that the method which has been adopted in the administraion of these railways is not new in Canada; exactly the

same principle is applied to public utilities in municipalities from one end of the Dominion to the other. The same argument which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) advances might be advanced in connection with the expenditures of a municipal council. In the case of municipalities in days gone by, it was always the practice for the expenditure of public money to be voted by the council. But as municipalities have gone into the operation of public utilities of various kinds they have found that in the carrying on of these utilities the practice referred to was not feasible or businesslike. Therefore a different form of government was worked out and in its working out by our municipalities the same principles are involved as in this scheme of government operation of railways. In the province of Ontario we find a great public utility to-day known as the Hydro-Electric system. That system is not operated as the Intercolonial railway used to be operated; it is conducted on lines very similar to those now followed in the management of the Canadian National railways. The Ontario Legislature votes money for capital expenditures, or for an extension of the Hydro-Electric system, but it has no control over the way in which that money is expended. It is true that expenditures are voted by the Legislature for a certain specific purpose, but in the administration of the Hydro-Electric system the expenditure of that money is left entirely in the hands of the Commission. At the end of the year that Commission submits a report to the Legislature and members then have an opportunity of looking into the various items of expenditure. However I submit that it would not be possible to carry on the Hydro-Electric system in that province as a department of Government and have every item of expenditure voted as is proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am convinced that to adopt any other method in the administration of our national system of railways would be a move in the wrong direction. Only along these lines can we get proper business administration, free from political control; only by pursuing this policy can we hope to make a success of public ownership in this country.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, although the evening is far advanced I cannot let this debate conclude

without protesting against the manner in which the Government have met the remarks made by the hon. member for An-tigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair). The hon. member complains that the Government have not given members of the House the information that they have asked for. The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid), instead of sticking to the point and answering the hon. member, wandered about in all directions in an effort to draw a red herring across the trail.
It was amusing, Mr. Speaker, to see four ministers of the Grown come to the rescue of fhe Government and endeavour to answer what the member for Antigonish and Guysborough had said. It is unusual to see so many ministers get up one after the other and endeavour to apologize for their actions. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. C'alder), the last minister who spoke, told us that at the end of the year members of the House would be given detailed information concerning the operation of the Canadian National railways. Now, that was rather a strange statement, in view of what happened a few days ago. I regret that under the rules of the House I am precluded from quoting Hansard, but I assume that I will be allowed to mention the date on which the Minister of Railways made his statement. On March 30, the Minister of Railways deliberately stated that one year having passed, he was in a position to give to the House an account of his stewardship, and of the stewardship of Mr. D. B. Hanna and the other directors of the Canadian National railways. He went on to say that he was prepared to do that. Now, let us see what kind of statement he did give to the House and the country. Was it the kind of statement that the Minister of Immigration says we are going to get? Was it the kind of statement that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would give to their shareholders? Was it the kind of statement that the Canada Steamship Lines would give to their shareholders?-or that any $20,000 corporation in this country would give to its shareholders? No; if you read Hansard you will find that although the operations of the railways showed a deficit of $47,000,000, the minister put it all down in a statement which occupies three lines of Hansard. That is the kind of statement the people of this country and the members of this House get with regard to the National railways.
The Minister of Immigration told us also that we would have some kind of statement with regard to the Canadian Merchant 107)
Marine when the year was up. Well, we have on Hansard-and by a strange coincidence it was given on the very same day that the Minister of Railways (made his statement-a statement made by the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Ballantyne) on the occasion of his asking the House to vote $20,000,000 to complete his shipbuilding programme. The Minister of Marine gave us a statement of the operations of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I am almost inclined to advise hon. gentlemen to go down town and obtain from a dentist a pair of forceps with which to pull the information out of the Minister of Marine. He told us to-night that he gave us all the necessary information gladly and willingly. But what happened on that occasion when we tried to get the information? First he told me that he had $1,500,000 in the bank or in the vault in cash and Victory bonds. When I nailed him down and made him put the statement on Hansard-it will be found in Hansard of March 30-he submitted a statement comprising five lines for the assets and two lines for the liabilities. In that statement, instead of having $1,500,000 to his credit in cash and in Victory bonds, he is shown as having $400,000 in cash and $504,000 in Victory bonds, a slight discrepancy of almost $600,000. That is the kind of statement that the Minister of Marine gives to this House.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Do I understand the hon. member to say that in my statement which appears on Hansard the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is shown as having $1,500,000 in Victory bonds?


William Duff: No; I say that the Minister of Marine made the deliberate statement to me on the floor of the House that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had $1,500,000 in cash and in Victory bonds, but when I nailed him down in the evening and made him read the figures-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The hon. member is not in order in reviving a previous debate in the same session. Even if there is no reference to Hansard, a previous debate may not be brought up for discussion on a motion to go into Committee of Supply.


William Duff: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Marine introduced the discussion of these previous debates and it seems rather strange that I should not be allowed to reply to their remarks. Possibly I may be allowed to do so with the consent of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is certainly justified in replying to anything that has been said to-night by the Minister ol Railways or by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but in doing so he may not revive a previous debate in the same session.	.


William Duff: 
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are getting rather 'far away from the original motion and the original discussion. So far, indeed, away have we got from it that, instead of considering the question whether a specific question, this question or that, should he answered, iwe have got rather into a consideration whether or not it is possible to carry on public ownership in this country under business principles. I had not intended for one moment to intervene in this debate, but I am prompted to rise in view of some statements that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. Operation of railways by Governments has, pretty nearly everywhere outside of Prussia, been condemned because it has not Worked as economically and efficiently as has private operation, although on the other hand, there have been great compensating advantages. The idea has been and the idea of the Government, as I understand it, is to see whether those compensating advantages which public ownership gives as against private operation can he retained under a direct and intimate business administration. The suggestion is that that is impossible; that it is entirely unconstitutional that we should carry on this particular phase of public business except, forsooth, by a responsible minister who must appear in his place in the House and always be posted as to the details of that tremendously diversified administration. Let us stop for a minute and see what that means. It certainly means one thing, and that is that everything that is being said against Government operation in any direction holds good as regards railway administration. I am not saying anything about patronage. Patronage has practically ceased to exist; hut the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MoMaster) wants us, having got rid of it, to put ourselves into a position where we shall be able to claim some credit for

resisting temptation by reason of that temptation not being removed ifrom us. But apart from any question of patronage, apart [DOT]from any question of party politics, the generally accepted idea is that men work better for an immediate reward which is open to them in private business, than they will work for a government, and that you will get better results from a private company than from a 'Government department, no matter how well it is run. I have always had the idea that the functions of Parliament ought to be divided, that there was such ,a thing as administrative as well as legislative functions. I thought that what England had found wise and safe to do in connection with the Admiralty could well be tried in Canada, to see if it were not possible under a similar system to run efficiently and honestly the people's railways for the people.
Mr. iMoMiASTER: Is not the administration of the Admiralty directly under the responsibility of the First Lord, with a seat in the House?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not that immediate knowledge of the situation which would enable me to answer the hon. gentleman with absolute accuracy, but my strong recollection is that in England all Navy and Admiralty matters are absolutely removed from the floor of Parliament.
Mr. MoMASTER:	Oh, no. The First
Lord of the Admiralty, like the Minister of War, brings in his Estimates and they are discussed on the floor of Parliament.
iSir HENRY DRAYTON: I am not speaking of Estimates or votes but of the details of administration, of the class of work done by the Navy. I do not think you will find such questions as, where the Navy buys its coal, discussed in the British House of Commons.
Mr. IMdMAlSTER: Certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
real reason why this experiment should not be tried in Canada? ilt is said that people won't work for governments. I have found a lot of men around Ottawa who are willing to work hard for governments.
Mr. M'cKENZIE: They are willing to get their cheques.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A large number of them earn their cheques pretty well, and are perhaps just as much entitled to those cheques as the workers of any private company are entitled to theirs. This is how the theory of the thing appeals to me: We

are expected to have absolutely successful operation of railways by private companies. The suggestion is that a man working for a private company, as compared with a man working for the Government, is working for personal advantage, for gain. That may be true of ordinary business, but it is not true of railways. In so far as the executive and the officials and the men are concerned, outside of a few they have no more financial interest as a rule in the success of the railway than have the workers on the Canadian National railways. On the other hand, the workers on the Canadian National railways have some interest in their railway because it is their own. I think it would be a great pity if this experiment, for it is an experiment, and a great experiment, were not given a fair chance, and it will not be given a fair chance if from time to time at the mere whim of an hon. member or somebody else, perhaps suggested by a paragraph in 'a newspaper that is absolutely dedicated to the destruction of public ownership, questions are put on the Order Paper and have to be answered dealing with such matters as: What are the names of the employees, their nationality, their religion,-everything but their railroad experience. The question of railroad experience, again, would seem to me to be a matter for the management. With very great deference I would suggest that this very necessary experiment, this attempt to get rid of difficulties most gravely pressing upon us, be given a fair opportunity. There is absolutely nothing to hide so far as the business of this company is concerned. The House will be given the fullest opportunity to examine the report when it is brought down. Have committees or anything else you like. These committees will be a great deal more than the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific will get, but make thorough inquiry then, if you will, so long as the detailed business from day to day is not of necessity more or less interrupted. There is a great deal of difficulty in getting traffic, and in making traffic connections; there is more difficulty in keeping them unless business is looked after promptly and properly. Make absolutely no mistake about this, that if the management of the Canadian National railways, no matter how able, is to be pilloried from day to day, is to be subjected to any charge thrown out to-day that may be shown to be absolutely false in two days' time, it will have no chance of making the railways a success; there would be great danger that they would be too busy answering question to look after their work.

I would like to add one further suggestion: I think any hon. gentleman is absolutely within his rights in asking a question in connection with a matter as to which he is prepared to make a charge against the management. In other words, the management, simply because it is through a company, should not be protected against wrong. They should be open to atttack; they should be open to proper proceedings being taken against them in a proper case, but they should not be open to widespread general fishing expeditions which can do nothing except to condemn the project to failure before it is fairly started.
;Mr. VIEW:	I have the very greatest
sympathy for the ministers who have spoken after the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid). If these gentlemen ever damn anything, they must surely damn ministerial solidarity, which compels them to exert all their mental alertness to defend the astounding statements of the Minister of Railways. They came one after the other, ' but put on the soft pedal, and did not repeat his statements with the audacity, if I may be allowed the expression, shown by the Minister of Railways himself. The Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) thought that the matter was so simple that it should not have involved the House in such a protracted debate; but who caused all this debate, if not the Minister of Railways, in saying he would not divulge to this House the information it was seeking? The ministers who spoke after him (Mr. J. D. Reid), notwithstanding ministerial solidarity, took care to say that they would not go so far as he, and they declared that the information asked for would be forthcoming, but with this reservation, that, it *would be given in due time. Their attitude was just a defence of the Minister of Railways, allowing him a safe retreat from the difficult position in which he had placed himself. The ministers assured us that we would get the information because we were entitled to it, but we would get it a little later on.


An hon. MEMBER:: After the House rises.


Thomas Vien: Yes, after the House rises, next year or the year after, or after the next election, when we shall be in power and have an opportunity of digging up the records. As the Minister of Finance has said, there is a question of principle involved, a fundamental principle which is one of the cardinal points of British responsible government. But the Minister of Railways, who is not very scrupulous as
regards principles, generally leans on the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) when it comes to questions of constitutionality or the legal interpretation of points which confront him. To-night, however, he was too far away from his mentor, who would probably have pulled him down by his skirts. When he had made his astounding statement, however, there was only one thing left to do, and that was to explain it as best they could, and it was a hard job. The arguments that have been put forward to-night by the ministers are really not a fair reflection of their talent, and one who must have regretted very much the situation in which he was placed by the Minister of Railways was the Minister of Marine. That hon. gentleman came here and told us that he was ready to place the information on record, that he had nothing to be ashamed of. The administration of the ships of the Government had shown a surplus-


William Duff: On paper.


Thomas Vien: : I take it for granted-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not want the remarks of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) to pass unchallenged by myself as Minister of Marine and as a member of the Government. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the profits I gave to the House were only profits on paper?


William Duff: Am I allowed to answer, Mr. Speaker?


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon.
member desires to answer, I am sure the House will accord him the privilege of doing so.


William Duff: I said that the statement given by the Minister of Marine was on paper, and I proved in my remarks tonight, that the Minister of Marine had said he had a certain sum in cash and Victory bond at the bank, while his own statement contradicted that. Until I see a regular business statement which I can go over I have not much faith in the minister's statement on paper.


Thomas Vien: I had not the opportunity to go into the figures, but I will take it for granted that the statement made by the Minister of Marine is correct, and that he has a surplus, and therefore has nothing to hide. But it was his misfortune to-night to have to stand by the statement of the Minister of Railways, that this information

would not be forthcoming in all cases. He said: "Surely you do not expect the Minister of Railways, in regard to the administration of the roads, to give to the House more than a big corporation would give to its shareholders." I grant that, and as the member for Oape Breton North and Victoria (Mr, McKenzie) said, we would be satisfied with such a statement as that of the Canadian Pacific Railway. So long as the shareholders of a big corporation receive from their managers and their board of directors a statement showing an honest, progressive, and successful administration' and reasonable returns on their investments, the majority of them will be satisfied and will seek no further information. But what would one think if the board of management of a private concern should inform its shareholders that it had a deficit of over $47,000,000, to meet which they proposed to assess all the shareholders? Would not the shareholders of such a company call upon their directors for a strict account of their stewardship?
I differentiate very clearly the position of the Minister of Railways from that of the Minister of Marine. The Minister of Marine tells us that he has a surplus to show and, as he states to night, the information is available. But his colleague, the Minister of Railways, not only has deficits to show, but, to aggravate this already serious situation, he announces his determination to withhold any information which hon. members, perfectly within their rights, ask on behalf of the people. He says that the people of the country will pay this deficit and that he will exercise the right to give just what information he sees fit, and if any hon. member asks a question whether on the Order Paper or by any other means, he alone will judge as to the propriety of giving or withholding the desired information. I say, iSir, that the propounding of such a theory in this House of Commons is subversive of all the cardinal principles of British constitutional government.
There is much to be said in answer to the statements which have come from the hon. gentleman and his colleagues. The Minister of Finance takes this attitude: "Do you think that a minister will always be prepared to answer on the spur of the moment all the questions that are put to him?" Well, Sir, I say that when questions are put on the Order Paper in the ordinary course under the rules of the House, and when the minister can take sufficient time to acquaint himself with the matters con-

cerned, hon. members have a right to expect complete information dn regard to any question which they put to the ministry. A minister can take five, six or seven days if he likes, in order that he may obtain the facts required, tout he is obliged to answer the questions that are asked him if he desires to observe the ordinary rules of procedure and to conform to those principles that underlie our government and the political institutions which we cherish.
It has been said that to call the Minister of Railways to account for all the expenditures of the National railways, is to introduce partisan politics and political patronage into the administration of the railway. Nothing is further from the truth, for if we are called upon to pay $47,000,000 to cover the deficit with which we are faced, it seems only fair and reasonable that we should obtain from the (minister who is in charge of the department full information as to how this deficit came about. And how can we know from the minister, or from any responsible parties, if not the minister, just what the details are, if not through questions placed on the Order Paper? The Minister of 'Immigration and Colonization, who is always very adroit dn extricating himself from difficulties1, has put up a straw man for the mere pleasure of knocking him down. He said: "Just imagine the officials of the Tailway standing here for six months and coming with bulky documents to give explanations and information on every possible point, stopping the management of the Canadian National railways during all that time, and costing the country vast sums of money." Well, Sir, there is really nothing in this bit of humour. I think that if an hon. member on this side puts on the Order Paper a question asking the Minister of Railways how many tons of coal were bought last year for the Canadian National railways, at what price, from whom the coal was bought, and how it was distributed, he could very well give that information without disturbing the managers or interrupting their operations. And when he comes here and tells us that the country is faced with $47,000,000 of a deficit, I think that it must strike him that some explanation will be called for by the country, and that above everything else the members of this House have a right to know how the moneys of the people have been expended, and to get such information as may enable them to ascertain just where the leakage has been. But how can we find out unless we put on the Order Paper such questions as those to

which answers have been denied us? I think the Minister of the Interior said that the auditors would Tender a full statement concerning the railways, and he scouted the possibility of this House questioning the accuracy of their report. But, Sir, while the auditors' report will contain the information that such and such an expenditure was incurred, that so much money was spent on coal, it will not give the facts in regard to which hon. gentlemen have put questions. We have been asked: Do you think that the Minister of Railways is going to introduce partisan politics into the management of the railways? And again: Do you think that he should interfere? Well, that was one of the jokes of the Minister of the Interior, and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in reply told him that he thought it was the duty of the minister to have the final say in every question arising in the management of the railways. This opinion of the hon. member for Brome the Minister of the Interior characterized as a very generous admission, which he claimed to be a justification of the Government's policy. I say, Sir, that the Minister of Railways ought to have the final say because he is the person who is responsible to this House; and if he discovers that among the managers of the railway system there are some who do things which, in his opinion, sane judgment cannot approve, then I decalre that it is his duty to dismiss such officials.


James Alexander Calder: Would that principle apply to the appointment of all officials?


Mr.   VEIN@: Not directly; but I say this


James Alexander Calder: Pardon me. If the hon. gentleman takes the position that the Minister of Railways should have the final say with regard to the purchase of all material and all supplies, and he responsible to Parliament directly as the Minister of Railways-


Thomas Vien: I said "not directly."
iMr. CALDER: -why should he not be responsible for the appointment of all officials and employees of the railway as well?


Thomas Vien: The hon. .gentleman is trying to evade the point. He endeavours to put into my mouth the statement that the minister should acquaint himself with every minute detail of management. That I have not said. I say the minister should have the final say when he finds, either as a re. suit of personal investigation or through information from other sources, that there
has been culpable mismanagement, because he is responsible to this House and to the people. And if he finds that his managers have appointed any man who in his opinion is obviously unfit for the position he holds, he should exercise his undoubted prerogative of dismissing such an official. Will the minister contend that it is the duty of the Minister of Railways to suffer an appointment when such is to his- personal knowledge entirely bad, and should refrain from intervention?


James Alexander Calder: Not at all.


Thomas Vien: Then the minister admits
that if the Minister of Railways finds something wrong in the management of these railways he is obliged to intervene and he has the final say. That is the principle that the hon. member for Brome presented a minute ago.


James Alexander Calder: If I were the Minister of Railways and I found that condition I would remove the management.


Thomas Vien: And have the final say.


James Alexander Calder: I would remove the management if the management was not conducting the business property.


Thomas Vien: And not the appointee5


James Alexander Calder: Not the appointee.


Thomas Vien: The minister states that if
he were the Minister of Railways and he found that the Board of Management of the Canadian National railways had made an improper appointment and that the wrong person had been appointed he would not change the appointee but he would change the Board of Directors. That is not the proper thing to do. The manager or owner of any big business would not do that. He would remove the Board of Managers if he thought they were wrong in all things, but the man who was wrongly appointed would be removed first, and the management would not he removed if that was the only fault. This does not mean that the minister should enmesh himself in details and have his finger in every question of management. These are the only principles that we have advocated and there is nothing in them that is subversive of sound principles of good management in the affairs of the Canadian National railway. We say that the House having been called upon to vote $47,000,000 to cover a deficit in the operation of these railways

we have a right to get some information with respect to it. From whom is the House to get that information if not from the Minister responsible for the Department under which the National railways dome? The colleagues of the Minister of Railways have said that this information will be forthcoming. That it will be forthcoming in documents and can even be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. But the Minister of Railways said exactly the opposite. He said that he would not give the desired information and that he would not permit his Board of Directors, or his Board of Management, to appear before the Public Accounts Committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say anything of the kind.


Thomas Vien: Surely.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not.


Thomas Vien: The minister now states that he did not say anything of the kind. The House will accept that as an example of the "retreat" of which I spoke a few minutes ago.


Andrew Ross McMaster: A shunting operation.


Thomas Vien: It exemplifies the situation in which the minister finds himself that he cannot now adhere to what he said a few minutes ago. I will not protract the discussion longer than to say that to find ourselves, in discussing matters of such magnitude, in which the gravest interests of the country are At stake, confronted by a minister of the Crown making such an astounding statement amounts to action subversive of all the principles of sound and responsible government.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Soldiers' Land Settlement, $50,017,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there are some hon. gentlemen who wish to get information on this subject of Soldiers' Land Settlement before we discuss any of the items unless the Government wishes to continue for a little time.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The special committee
which is dealing with matters affecting the soldiers is still sitting from day to day, holding sittings both in the morning and in the afternoon, and-we would rather that the discussion of these items be postponed until such time as the committee has had the advantage of going further into the matter and
[Mr. Vien-1
an opportunity to prepare and submit its report.


Mr. DOHERTY:: There is no desire to
proceed if information is wanted upon these items. I take it that we may truthfully report that we have taken up the items and made some progress. I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at P2.04 a.m., Tuesday.
Tuesday, April 27, 1920.
The House melt at Three o'clock.



NEW MEMBER.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform (the House that Ithe Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in ChianoeTy a certificate of the election and return o!f Angus McDonald, Esq., for the electoral district of Timiskaming.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) presented the first report of the Special Committee .on Scientific Research.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 75 (Letter V of the Senate), for the relief of Albert Harvey McBride.- Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 79 (LebteT Z of the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Scougall.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 81 (Letter B2 of the Senate), for the relief of Ada Mabel Sanderson.-Mr. Mow.alt.
Bill No. 82 (Letter C2 of the Senate), for the relief of John Albert Green-Mr. Douglas (Stratbeona).
Bill No. 83 (Letter D2 of the Senate), for the relief of Emily Cruickshank.-Mr. Douglas (Stratbeona).
Bill No. 84 (Letter E2 of the Senate), for the relief of Cyril Graham Sinclair.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 1 desire .to ask the Government a question

based on a press report that appears in this morning's paper and which seems to be almost too good to be 'true. The report in question states that Mr. W. F. O'Connor, K.C., will resign shortly from the Board of Commerce, of which he is now, since the resignation of Mr. Justice Robson, senior commissioner. Asked if the report was true, Mr. O'Connor denied alt. Is the report true, rand, if so, what is the reason for Mr. O'Connor's resignation? Is it the intention of the Government to demobilize the balance of the hoard or just to allow it (to efface itself by the process of 'elimination?


Bit. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The Government has no notice of the intention of Mr. O'Connor to resign. Such being the case, demobilization cannot commence.
Hon, W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's): Have the Government any intention of appointing a chairman of the Board of Commerce, and, if so, when?


George Green Foster: That question
will have to remain a little time for answer.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Arthur iMeighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 68, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Jacques Bureau: Before we take up the
first clause would the minister explain the principal changes proposed, and the reasons therefor?	.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: That, of course, can
only be done in committee by unanimous consent.


Arthur Meighen: I gave a general outline of the Bill on its introduction, but I can give it again. The first clause is intended to confine the responsibilities of the Soldier Settlement Board as respects women to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, to make it clear that women nurses with the British Army for example, were not intended to be included. The second section gives the Chairman the rights in respect of transportation which the rank of deputy head of a department involves. The remaining sections are designed to enable the board to give special advantages to settlers who take up unimproved land, as distinguished from settlers
who go at once upon improved land. The Bill somewhat restricts the advantages of the latter class and extends the advantages of the former class, particularly as regards advances for stock and equipment. That is done with a view to encouraging new cultivation, rather than the continued cultivation of land already improved, ll purpose to move in committee a further amendment to enable the board, in the case of advances for equipment and stock to insist upon the inclusion in the security, of other stock or equipment owned by the settler. We find very considerable difficulty in the administration of the loans for stock and equipment for the reason that the identity of the article is hard to follow, and settlers sometimes take advantage of that fact to ascribe to the stock owned by the board- because sold by the board and not paid for by the settler-all the losses that occur, though as a matter of fact the losses by death may be in their own herds. Indeed, it is more difficult to administer loans made for equipment and stock than any other *class of loan. The dangers surrounding the investment are much greater, and the securities which surround the advance must be strengthened accordingly. I did not intend on this occasion to make any remarks at all on the general work of the board for the year, as I purposed to do that immediately upon the introduction of the Estimates for soldier settlement. I think that would he a more appropriate occasion.
On section 1-"settler" to mean male member only of certain military forces:


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask why the
privileges that are accorded to Canadian imen who have served with the British Army are not extended also to Canadian women who have served as nurses in British hospitals? This Bill, I understand, excludes women from the privileges given to the men. 'That, I think, is an injustice. A similar injustice is done in connection with the regulations of other departments of the Government. I have in mind the *case of a girl from the county of Kamour-aska who served as a nurse in a British hospital for two years, but who was refused the gratuity that was given to nurses with the Canadian forces and also to Canadian soldiers who had served in the British Army. What is the reason for this distinction?


Arthur Meighen: I cannot speak specifically for the Militia Department, but it would occur to me that it would be hard to justify placing in exactly the same position

the person who served in our army and the person who served in the British army. If they were to be in the same position as respects one matter, they should be in the same position as respects all, and that would involve the payment of the scale of ipay and allowances that the Canadian army carries. These people chose of their own accord to go into the British army instead of ours, and they cannot expect the advantages of both. If they take the advantages of one, they must take the disadvantages with it. They cannot have the advantages of the course they took and the advantages of taking a different course. As regards this Bill, the purpose of the whole settlement programme, primarily, at least, is to secure settlement, and we did not feel we would be justified in including Canadian nurses because there might conceivably be *cases where a nurse would be so circumstanced, having a son, possibly, or a husband who was not a soldier, that she could become a settler in a position to perform farm duties. We have had some such cases, but we did not want all the nurses who are in the British army to get the idea that they can come under this plan if they merely come to Canada. We want to make it clear that so far as women settlers are concerned we accept only women who were in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces.


Mr. STEVENS :: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a certain class of soldiers in regard to whom I have received a good deal of correspondence, and that is the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who did not go overseas.
I quite appreciate the fact that in some cases they may not be justified in claiming any of the benefits of this Act, but unquestionably there are a large number of C.E.F. men who were unable to get overseas who would make excellent settlers. In fact, comparatively speaking, the great majority of them would make first rate settlers, and I have always felt that this privilege of the Soldiers' Land Settlement Act should be extended to those members of the C.E.F. who were compelled to remain in Canada. I should like the minister to make a clear statement as to the official decision of the Government in regard to this class of soldiers. The only argument that I have heard advanced against their inclusion under the Act has been the apprehended danger of extending this movement to limits that might financially embarrass the Government, but I must say frankly that I do not anticipate

any such difficulty. As the Government are in a position to obtain a greater amount of information than any private member can get, it may be possible that the minister can give the committee some explanation that may be satisfactory. And I am reminded that these advances being based on the principle of a loan, the risk which the Government would-be running in extending the scope of the land settlement scheme to the men I have mentioned would be very slight. As I have already stated, I feel keenly that this class of the C.E.F. should be afforded the privilege of the Soldiers' Land [Settlement Act.


Arthur Meighen: As I stated a moment ago, the first object of the whole land settlement policy is settlement; and the second object is to give exceptional advantages for settlement to those who are particularly the creditors of the State in respect of the war. Now, in order to satisfy both requirements, the second at least must be fairly complied with. In deciding to whom we owe the most we must draw the line somewhere, and undoubtedly we have not drawn it in any narrow or niggardly spirit. The definition of the word "settler" in the Act to-day is extremely wide, and as a consequence the offices of the Soldiers' Settlement Board throughout Canada have been serenaded almost night and day for over a year. The mass of applicants is so great that it has indeed taxed the capacity of the organization to absorb them. It must be understood that the denial of the privilege of the Soldiers' Settlement Act is not in the way of penalty. If it were a penalty we would have to ascertain those who were to blame and those who were not among the number that did not go overseas. But that is not the criterion. All other good citizens of Canada who could not possibly enlist may be entirely free from censure, but they are not included in the Soldiers' Settlement Act. We simply draw a rough line and say that those who went from Canada shall be included. We may deny some very deserving men who remained in Canada, but we -have taken a bold step, and until we have cared for a great body of deserving applicants from among the overseas men, I do not think it would be wise to extend the boundaries of the scheme and open the door to others. It will undoubtedly be a charge on the people of this country for some time in taking care of the financial responsibilities to which we are already bound. The commitments of

the board last year amounted to something over $58,000,000, and while we trust the commitments for the next year will be somewhat less, they will be still very high. It is true the moneys are given by way of loan, but the loss on interest is very considerable. The cost of administration necessarily is anything at all but small, and besides that there are certain remissions of interest which count for a very great deal; and in the whole programme there is an element of danger which must be followed by a proportion of loss that is certainly inevitable. In the circumstances, therefore, I would strongly recommend that there should be no extension of the privileges of the Act for some time at all events.
Mr.W.F.MACLEAN: May I call the attention of the committee to a case that came before me yesterday of a returned soldier who served throughout the war? This man is a mechanic and is building his own house in my constituency, and he feared an event that seemed imminent in Ontario, but one that was postponed by the legislature of that province, and that is the extension of the moratorium. He thought that under the moratorium he would have to pay all his mortgage by the first of July, as the Bill first provided, and he wrote to me to ascertain whether it would not be possible for the Dominion Government to widen the application of the Soldiers' Settlement Act so as to provide loans for those returned men who are building homes of their own. I quite realize, as the minister has pointed out, that the commitments under the Act have been very high, but I feel it incumbent upon me to bring this man's case to the attention of the Government, because there are many other men similarly circumstanced throughout the country who are in dire need of assistance. Will the man who served overseas and who is not competent nor desirous to be a farmer be afforded some means of re-establishing himself in some walk of life other than farming?


John Flaws Reid: I desire to express some views along the lines of the remarks which have been addressed to the committee by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) with reference to the Canadian soldiers who enlisted in Canada and who did not get overseas. I understand that the overseas men are divided into two classes: those who were disabled a,nd are in receipt of pension, and those who are entitled to the benefits of the Soldiers' iSettlement Act; that is to say, they
may take a grant of land, receive a loan for livestock, etc. But the Canadian soldier who did not get overseas is not in receipt of pension nor entitled to consideration at all. I know some Canadian soldiers who unfortunately did not go overseas, and one I have in mind at me present moment enlisted early in the war. He relinquished a good position, and got as far as Valcartier where he sustained a broken leg. He will be lame as long as he lives. He is too much of a man to ask for a pension, and is not entitled to the benefits of the Soldiers' Settlement Act. I think the minister would be well advised to take this matter into careful consideration. I find no fault with the minister, but I think them is need for further investigation. The soldiers who enlisted in Canada but did not get overseas are not receiving any benefits under the Soldiers' Settlement Act.


Arthur Meighen: Referring first to the
remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), there is no doubt a very large class of just such men as he describes,, a class I know it would be the desire of the Go\ernment to assist by loans were such a course possible or practicable. The committee on Civil Re-establishment last year very carefully considered that class of cases and the finding of the committee was that as' we had already provided needed assistance to the provinces by loans for the purpose of house building, that should constitute a measure and method of assistance for the meantime any way.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: Supposing the
soldier has a house built- with a mortgage on it?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think that
this country is in a position as yet to undertake loans for the purpose of paying off all the debts of those who may have debts upon their properties. There is of course a lot to be said in favour of that position, but it lacks this that can be said for the soldiers settlement assistance that the soldiers settlement assistance looks to the cultivation of land and production and therefore an increase in the wealth of the country. That has been the primary object to be attained. Assistance along the other line has one object and one object only namely, settlement, giving the soldier some money and getting him better fixed. That is not only all right but most commendable, but the other class of expenditure can he defended on the double ground that you can advance for soldiers settlement.

The country can afford to do more when settlement and the cultivation of land results than it can afford to do when these do not result.
Coming to the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid), I realize the merits of the single case that he brings to attention, namely, that of a man who being disabled in Canada could not proceed overseas and cannot get the assistance of the board for the reason that he, first of all, does not get a pension and the reason that he does not get a pension in that individual case is because his pride prevents him from applying for it. If it were possible to make an Act so detailed as to cover such isolated, rare, and peculiar cases as that I would be very glad to do so. I cannot understand why such a man would not apply for a pension because if I understood the case and the circumstances aright he would be entitled to a pension and being entitled to a pension he comes under the Soldiers' Settlement Act. I do not know how we can amend the Act to cover such very special and extraordinary cases. If we were to say: "We will take care of all who are in Canada " that would include the great mass of men who were taken under the Military Service Act, hundreds- yes, thousands-of whom never got away from their own farms. It would mean that when the hand of the State was placed upon them they were admitted to the full advantages of this Act involving very great costs and commitments to the country. I do not think that could be justified. There is nothing at all in the way of special recognition that that vast class of cases deserves and I do not think for the sake of some who did not leave Canada and who may perhaps have special desserts, we would be justified at all, under present financial conditions, in undertaking to extend the commitments of this Act to the whole body o,f those who in a great many cases, never even left their farms.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Having regard to the
number of applications for settlement under this Act, what about the available, suitable, land?


Arthur Meighen: The available Dominion land within anything like an economical distance from railways is very small. We have had since the first Act went into operation 6,500 soldier grant entries on Dominion lands. That shows that only about one-quarter of those who have come in under the general benefits of the Act have gone on Dominion lands which they get free. All the rest have bought lands or have

asked for assistance in paying off the encumbrances on land they had. Of course there is any amount of land; you might say there are unlimited quantities open to purchase, but of free lands under the Dominion Lands Act the areas that are worth while taking up are for the most part exhausted.


Mr. MORPHY:: I take it from what the minister says that roughly about 24,000 soldiers have been placed upon land of one kind or another. Would the minister mind stating how many applications have not yet been dealt with, or how many placements have not actually been made?


Arthur Meighen: The total number of applications received up to the 31st March was 50,423. The total of those who had passed as qualified was 36,830. There have been 1,556 undergoing training.


John Flaws Reid: I think the Act is just a little bit too rigid. If it were more elastic I believe a great majority of the soldiers would be satisfied. I had not in my mind at all what is in the minister's mind, that the benefits under the Soldiers' Settlement Act should be extended to every soldier whom the State put its hand upon because hundreds of men never left the farms although they were in the enlisted forces. The benefits of the housing scheme do not extend to the soldiers in every province. The Government of the province in which the soldier lives may or may not take advantage of the scheme. We have two Provincial Governments that have not taken *advantage of the offer and therefore the soldiers in those provinces are not getting the benefit of that money.


Jacques Bureau: Referring to the Act of
1919, I see that the word " settler " has practically four definitions. The word " settler ":
means a person who at any time during the war has been therein engaged on active service in a military force,-
I suppose those words " active service " would protect the minister from those who have remained on the farm while the war was going on because I do not presume they were on active service unless they donned khaki.
(1)	of Canada .	.	. and has served out
of Canada.
And who is entitled to a pension. That is one of the classes that is not excepted.
(2)	of His Majesty or of any of His Majesty's
allies .	.	. and, being ordinarily resident in
Canada when he enlisted in or otherwise be-

came a member of such force, has served thereafter out of Canada, In a theatre of actual war.
Paragraph (3) applies to the resident of another dominion who has served in the army. Now my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has ju^t stated that there was a discrimination in this case as against .the women. The word "settler" in paragraph (1) includes women who served in the forces of Canada, or were in active service out of Canada, and who are entitled to a pension on account of being wounded. Paragraph (2) applies to the case of a man ordinarily a resident of Canada. Why not leave the second class oult of the amendment and make this privilege apply to residents of Canada who. have joined His Majesty's army or the army of any of the Allies, and saw active .service? Because paragraph (2) includes Canadians, or if not Canadians, people who. resided in Canada and intended to. become Canadians but left the .country for .the purpose of joining either His Majesty's army or the army of one of the Allies. The class referred to'-in paragraph (3) is different. Paragraph (3) applies to a person who has been on active service in the forces of Hi.s Majesty or of any British Dominion or colony, and has served out of the country wherein he enlisted or otherwise became a member of such force in a theatre of actual war. I do not see that a woman who was an ordinary resident of Canada and enlisted for fwhat is considered active service and went out of Canada to do that service either in the armies of His Majesty or in the army of any Ally .should be deprived of the privilege referred to. I do not know whether my hon. friend catches the distinction I desire to make. If my hon. friend wants to make a discrimination against the women-I suppose it is only in favour of nurses in this case-why discriminate against a woman who. was residing in Canada and left this country for the purpose of doing actual .service? Furthermore the widow of the mian who died on the battlefield should foe entitled to. take .advantage of the provisions of ,the Settlement Act. Again, I do not see why a Canadian, or a person who. intended to become a Canadian, and who left our shores to go on .active service abroad should not be entitled to the same advantages as are accorded to the other classes referred to.


Arthur Meighen: Of course the Act does include belligerents in any of the Allied forces, inclusive of the forces of the United Kingdom. Whatever Parliament might do were the whole legislation to be recast at
the present time might be doubtful, but the point is this: The' soldiers overseas in the British army particularly, and in the French army, were informed of the contents of 'the original Adt .and many of them prepared to come <to Canada and have been coming under that Act. Now we have a board at work in England sifting the applicants who desire to come in ordeT that none may cross the ocean who are not Sudh as should foe admitted under the provisions of the Act-such ais can qualify and are practically certain to succeed as settlers. That being the ca.se it would never do now to restrict that class, much less to remove it altogether-it would be looked upon .as a breach of faith.
A.s regards this clause which seeks only to define the class (of (women iwho can come in, it is not of great consequence because we know, and must frankly say, that the number of women who by themselves can qualify as settlers and undertake farm work and .show to. a qualifying board that they can go out on the farm and do the iwork and make a living is very small indeed. We admit nurfees and say to them "If you (served in our forces and oan qualify we will let you go out info, this northern country and see if you can succeed;" but we do not want to have any such invitation held out to nurses in the British army, no matter where they come from. In the first .place the number who might possibly ever succeed in entering the gate would be very sm-all, if any at all.


William Cameron Edwards: Have you had any applications?


Arthur Meighen: Yes we have had one or two. We want to make it clear that in so far ats women are concerned we are prepared to take care of those of our forces ; but we do not want the women of other forces to feel that they have a right to come here and make application for these special advantages, because the fact of the matter i.s they cannot succeed even if they get out on farms in Canada.


Jacques Bureau: The minister is not meeting the exact point that I made. I am not asking him to open the doors wide to all the women who. served in the Allied armies.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
means simply to. Canadians?


Jacques Bureau: Those who were residents of Canada .at the time they enlisted and went on service in the Allied armies overseas. The number is so restricted there is not such .a danger of an invasion of our

vacant lands 'by womanhood. But even if the numbers were greater their claims should be recognized and the advantages given here should not be refused to them. Now paragraph (2) defines a "settler" as being:
A person who at any time during the war has heen therein engaged on active service in a military forces-of His Majesty or of any of His Majesty's allies-and being ordinarily resident in Canada when he enlisted in or otherwise became a member of such force, has served thereafter out of Canada, in a theatre of actual war.
Some of these persons, as I have already said, would not be Canadians but the fact of their having been resident in Canada would indicate that they had intended becoming Canadians.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the matter is of enough importance to prolong the discussion. Provided the hon. member would simply agree to omit from the clause in the present Bill the figure "2" and the word "and" his views would be met. Then if they are really Canadians and went over and served in the British army-if there are any of those who can qualify-I . have no objection to giving them -a chance but I do not know of any. We have had no such applicants so far.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Meighen moves to amend clause 1 by substituting the word "class" for the word "classes" and striking out the words "2 and." Shall the aonend-pient carry?
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.


William Duff: If I understand aright the purpose of the Act passed last year in regard to the settlement of soldiers was to enable those who were anxious to settle on |the land and become farmers to do o. It seems to me there are other men who served in the British foroes-either on ,Canadian patrol boats or in the British fleet-during the war who are also entitled to such consideration from ithe Government. It seems to me that the privilege granted under this Bill should also be extended to1 our fishermen who were on naval .service and who would like to purchase .boats or gear to conduct the fishing business, because the fishing industry is just as important for the production of food *as is farming. I would therefore like to ask ithe minister if he is willing to extend a privilege similar to that granted under [DOT]this Bill to those men who>
wish to prosecute the fishing business,


Arthur Meighen: That matter has been urged on my attention by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who has supplied me with memoranda. I thought it w/as a fit question for .adjudication by the special committee *which is now sitting on the subject of Soldiers' Re-establishment. Therefore the chairman of that committee has been placed in possession of the file and will have the matter reviewed by his committee.
Mr. J. H. -SINCLAIR: Will there be an opportunity later on to deal with it by legislation? I would like to impress on the minister the importance of the matter mentioned by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). Large numbers of men in the Maritime Provinces were engaged in the fishing industry at the time they enlisted, many of them being seventeen to eighteen years of age, who had been accustomed to work in their father's boats or to assist somebody else. They came back grown-up men and anxious to go into business for themselves, but they did not have the necessary capital. It is much less expensive to set up a fisherman in business than it is to establish a man on the land, a large sum comparatively being required to equip a farmer, and it is a long time before he can produce anything to recoup the outlay. It is different with a fisherman. A boat and nets would cost perhaps not more than $2,000 in all, he could commence operations at once, and with moderately good luck he would very soon be able to begin paying back the money advanced to him. So long as his boat is insured, it and the nets would form a very good security, in fact, a better security than an abandoned farm in certain parts of the country. I think it would be well worth while for my hon. friend to give this matter his earnest attention, and I hope if the committee report favourably he will introduce legislation at the present session to give effect to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Duff).


William Stevens Fielding: I know, Mr. Chairman, there are difficulties in adapting the details of such a measure as this to the needs of . various classes of the community, and I sympathize with the minister in that respect. I have not any particular scheme to suggest in regard to helping the fishermen, but I do want to join my hon. friends from Lunenburg and Antigonish (Mr. Duff and Mr. Sinclair) in asking that something should be done for these fishermen, who are a very large and important class of the community. I know cases of young men re-

turned from overseas who have found it very difficult to resume their pre-war work, being without the means to provide themselves with the necessary outfit, although but a moderate sum would set them up in business as fishermen. I do not dwell upon the matter further; it is sufficient for me to state that I trust it will be taken up again and that the minister will be able to give it his cordial support.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is the Government giving any assistance to fishermen on the coast?
1 understand instructions were sent out to some officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to go among the fishermen and ascertain what they would like to get by way of assistance.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of any
assistance being given to those fishermen.
I would rather presume that the
4 p.m. activity the hon. member refers to resulted from the efforts of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When he pressed the matter upon me I asked him to have an investigation conducted and a practical report made as to what forms of assistance might be given to certain classes of men, what the security would be like, what the payments should be, and so on, and it is very likely that the minister's inquiries led to some such action as the hon. member (Mr. Chisholm) has in mind. I do not know that I look forward with pleasurable anticipation to the possibility of that added responsibility being placed upon the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Board; because the board is an agricultural board, the chairman being particularly an agricultural man, I do not think that he has any more practical knowledge of the fishing business than has the minister who is in charge of the work. Still I would not think there is anything so technical about it that it would require special knowledge on the part of the chairman of the committee, although we might require a technical man who had had actual experience and special educational advantages in fishing to take charge of the work. The matter, as I say, is before the Civil Re-establishment Committee. It all depends on when their report is presented whether its recommendations, if accepted, can be put into effect this session. I merely stated my general attitude towards the matter. I would rather like to see assistance given, for I think this is a class of assistance that perhaps comes closest in point of desirability and practicability to what we are giving now. But I know it will mean a great deal more in commitment 108
than the hon. member has in mind. I do not think I should say any thing that may influence the judgment of the committee one way or the other. I need only add that the report of the committee will be very promptly and seriously considered by the Government, and if that report is favourable, and is brought down in time, there is no reason why action should not be taken on it this session.
Mr. D. D. McKENZlE: As I have some fishermen-soldiers in my riding it might be construed as indifference on my part if I did not join my hon. friends who have very properly urged on the minister the desirability of giving some assistance to these men, and I can only say that I heartily concur in their suggestions and confirm what has been said regarding the excellent security which the equipment would afford for the advance made and the ability of the fishermen to begin repaying the loan at an early date. There is one of the things that I would like to bring to the notice of the minister, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballan-tyne) is taking an interest in this particular matter. Last year I brought to the notice of the Government that it would be a pity to dispose of the boats that were acquired by the Government during the war unless they could be sold at good prices, and it seems to me that they could be utilized with splendid results by these fishermen who understand how to handle such boats. If such craft are still in the hands of the Government, I think a company could be formed on the Atlantic coast to take charge of them and hire them, if not sell them outright, under reasonable terms to the fishermen, and so give them an opportunity to produce more of that food which is so necessary in this country.


Alexander William Chisholm: I referred a few minutes ago to the fact that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been making inquiries of these fishermen as to what assistance they would like. I would like to impress upon the minister the desirability of having something done this year, if possible, because the impression was made upon the fishermen that something would be forthcoming. They gathered together and made their presentation to the Superintendent of Fisheries, and they decided upon the amount of money that they would like to get and the security which they were prepared to give. I do not think the impression of the fishermen was that this was only a sort of investigation; I think they



understood something practical would 'be done, and they will be very much disappointed if it is not done. I thought the minister would be incorporating this in legislation before the House this session. I quite understand that the matter is now before the committee of which I am a member, and I hope the committee will be able to present its report in time for some legislation to be passed this session.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I heartily approve in the main the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm). The Albemi constituency which I have the honour to represent is made up very largely of fishing territory, and I regret that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) is not here to give some encouragement to members like myself who represent fishing districts. If anything is to be done, it must be done quickly if we expect the fishermen to take advantage of loans this year. Fishing boats cannot be built in a month or in two or even three months, and in British Columbia the fishing season is now in operation. As regards the very large fishing territory comprised in my constituency, there is very little suitable land available for the settlement of returned men, and my opinion, based on considerable experience, is that loans to fishermen would be safer than loans upon the land. I am speaking, not of loans to any one Who does not know anything about fishing, but of loans to actual fishermen who understand how to 'take care of their boats and nets, and I hope something will be done for the actual fishermen, as is being done for the returned man who goes on the land.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the committee that rule 13, clause 5, says:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I did not want to interrupt an hon. member who desired to put a single question to the minister concerning fishermen, but I must rule that a series of questions on that subject is entirely out of order, and I would respectfully request the committee to return to the subject-matter of the clause before the committee.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 2-chairman of board to have free or reduced transportation:


Jacques Bureau: Does that apply only to the chairman?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I will ask the Acting
Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) to allow me to get out of order for a second or two in order to make a suggestion.


Georges Henri Boivin: Even the hon. the Acting Prime Minister could not give that permission.


Jacques Bureau: Then I will ask the consent of the House to give me permission for a minute, just to make a suggestion.


Georges Henri Boivin: Has the hon. member (Mr. Bureau)the unanimous consent of the committee?


George Green Foster: Go ahead.


Jacques Bureau: It is very difficut to follow a clause like this unless the original section is reprinted). Perhaps on the ground of economy, the right hand -sheets of the Bill are blank; and as every hon. member has not 'time to read the Act as passed last year and has had time to forget what was enacted, I think the original section should have been reprinted.


William Stevens Fielding: A still better suggestion would be to repeal the entire clause and reenact it in the amended form. The general practice of making amendments by striking out a few words and inserting a few others is very apt to be embarrassing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-calculation of cost of land and improvements:
Arthur Meighen: I will read the original clause.
Section 17 reads:
1.	The board shall calculate in each case of sale the price at which any land may he sold under the provisions of this Act.
2.	In calculating the cost to the board of any land acquired by purchase, the board shall take into consideration not only the cost of the land, but also the cost of improvements, if any, effected by the board.
That would mean the cost of improvements already effected. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the board to take into account improvements to be effected. That is to say, in determining at what price the board can sell land to a soldier, they can take into account improvements to be effected on that land and sell at that price, thus lending him the money with which to make the improvements instead of waiting and having later on to make a further loan.


Jacques Bureau: Is the object of the clause to allow the board to calculate the cost of

lands even although they are not acquired by purchase? The section says:
In calculating the cost to the board of any land acquired by purchase.
The words "acquired by purchase" qualify the land. The minister is striking out those words, so that the board may make the calculation in regard to any land whether belonging to the Government or not.


Arthur Meighen: That is true, if the board sells land that we did not buy, for example, Hudson Bay land and what we call Douk-hobor land, lands of special value that are beyond the ordinary class of homestead lands and we do not feel that we would be justified in giving them away as homesteads. We sell those, thereby creating a fund which we use for certain purposes, for insurance against loss, for money in order to assist disabled men. That is what the board has in mind.


Jacques Bureau: Under the old section as it stands, the board, in calculating the cost of all lands purchased, before they were resold to the soldier took into consideration the improvements effected?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The words "or to be effected" are to he added. Is that not in the way of a loan to the soldiers in addition to the cost of the land?


Arthur Meighen: Besides the cost of the land and improvements already effected, the board can add the cost of the improvements to be effected in determining what they will sell the land at. In that way they make to the buyer a loan sufficient to enable him not only to take the land, but to make those specific improvements.


Jacques Bureau: If the land is not purchased, it belongs to the Government. It is sold to the soldier who intends to make certain improvements. He is going to charge himself for his labour and improvements if the cost of those improvements is to be added to the cost of the land. He is to be his own victim; that is, he is to work against himself, if you are to charge him for improvements he is going to make. I do not think it is fair for the board to charge him with them.


Arthur Meighen: He is not charged.


Jacques Bureau: If you charge the improvements in the price of the land, he pays for it.


Arthur Meighen: I may not have stated the position quite accurately. The clause will read:
The cost of the improvements, if any, effected, or to be effected, by the board.
These must be improvements to be effected by the hoard, not improvements to be effected by the purchaser from the board.


Jacques Bureau: It means that the board, before disposing of the land, can effect certain improvements, build, for instance, and have a certain acreage broken, and then they can wait to dispose of the land until somebody applies for it.


Arthur Meighen: I think the purpose of the board is to utilize the purchaser o.f that land, to fix what the land is worth, and then pay him to make the improvements. In that way the man is improving what is to be his own land. Under the statute the improvements are made by the board, and then the board sells to that man at the price not only of the land itself but of the improvements already made to it, and to be made by the board through the instrumentality of the purchaser.


Jacques Bureau: I am not sure I understand that perfectly.' The last man either buys or does not buy that land. If the title remains in the board the man leases the land, and I do not see how the board can put a value on the land unless the man buys it. If he becomes the purchaser the board has a mortgage on the land, and the transfer is absolute. The owner of the land then improves it, thereby giving more value to the security held by the Government, and he is to be made to pay a higher price for having made these improvements, unless he is to be treated as an ordinary labourer and paid so much per day for these improvements he makes on his own land. I cannot understand the dual role he is playing, first as the purchaser working on his own property, and secondly as a man hired by the Government to work on government property. If it is his own property I do not see why he should be paid for improving it, and if it is not his property I do not see why he should pay the Government for the improvements he himself has made.


Arthur Meighen: The board sells a soldier a certain quantity of land, say 160 acres, upon which there have been some improvements already made-a house has been built, let us say, worth $400 or $500.


Jacques Bureau: That is different. You
said improvements had been already made.
108i


Arthur Meighen: I am taking a case
that will cover both. The farm costs, say, $2,000 with the improvements. The sale then is for $2,500, but the board arranges with that man after the purchase goes through to do improvements in the way of breaking say, amounting to $400 more. He will be paid for doing that by the board, because he cannot do it unless he is paid. The board then sells him the land for $2,900, but as he goes on and 'makes those improvements the board pays him for them. In other words, the board sells the land for $2,900 and undertakes to make those improvements, using the settler himself for that purpose. In that way the man pays exactly what the land costs, and he has it improved.


Jacques Bureau: 'He is reimbursed for the $400 worth of improvements he makes?


Arthur Meighen: He is reimbursed, and he pays that amount back in the purchase price.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-prescribed forms:
Jacques Bureau: Section 32 of the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, reads as follows:
All agreements of sale or otherwise, all instruments evidencing liens or charges, and all other documents authorized or required by this Act, shall be made in such form and according to such forms and shall contain such provisions as by way of regulation made the board shall provide.
The amendment proposes to strike out the words "by way of regulation made." That will mean that instead of all these documents and instruments being uniform by regulation each case may be treated differently by the board, for these instruments are simply to be in such form as the board shall provide. I do not know what reasons there are for this change. If there are advantages to be gained by striking out these words "by way of regulation made" perhaps the minister would explain what they are. It seems to me we are giving the board discretion to make a special instrument in any case they see fit.
Mr. MEIGtHEN: The purpose is simply to provide that the board shall not require to have regulations setting out each form. If it were merely a regulation of the board it would be all right, but a regulation means a regulation approved by the Governor in Council, and we do not want to have to go through that procedure every time that a new form is put out by the board. We have to use so many forms that it would be too tedious and cumbersome.

We want the board to be empowered to provide such forms as it may see fit. Certainly the board is bound to have them uniform, or endless entanglements would ensue. I wish to move that this clause be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
Section thirty-two of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(1)	Every settler obtaining- advances from the board for any of the purposes of the Act may he required to furnish security on any property owned or held by him.
(2)	All agreements of sale or otherwise, all Instruments evidencing liens or charges, and all other documents authorized or required 'by this Act, shall he made in such form and according to such forms and shall contain in such provisions as the board shall provide and every such document shall have effect as if the form thereof were statutory, and were provided by and as part of this Act.


Jacques Bureau: Is the purport of this amendment that it will be within the discretion of the board to require any man making application for a loan to give a mortgage on other property than that which he acquires from the board., but that this need not invariably be required?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: I hardly think that is fair. There ought to be some general rule laid down. I think it is too wide as it stands. I think it would 'be better to say that if in the judgment of the board the land sold is not sufficient to guarantee the advances made, and the man is possessed of other property further security may be required. I do not say that the board would improperly use their discretionary powers, but we have seen that done, and I think it would be well to put some limit on those powers.
Mr. MEIiGHEN: I have no objection to embodying that principle as one of the board will be bound to follow, because that is really the principle they ought to follow. They should be governed by the value of the securities that they otherwise have. As I said before, the purpose of this Bill .is to provide that in the case of advances for stock and equipment, security may be taken on other stock held by the settler, because if not, it is too often the case that he lets the stock on which the Government has the lien hustle out in the cold while he takes good care of the stock that he regards more as his own private property. I do not know what the hon. member would suggest, but it might perhaps read like this: "May be required if the board considers the security otherwise insufficient."


Mr. FULTON:: I suppose we should consider the proposed amendment in conjunction with subsection (b) of section 18, under which all these advances are already made a first charge on any land purchased by the settler through the board and on the settler's own land if he has any.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, so far as the land is concerned. As I said before, the purpose of this amendment is to enable the board to get the other chattels as security for advances in respect of the stock and equipment. The section the hon. member refers to gives us no help in that regard.


Jacques Bureau: What is the meaning of "otherwise"?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I may read the clause as amended, and the hon. gentleman will appreciate its significance:
Every settler obtaining advances from the board for any of the purposes of the Act may be required, if the board considers the security otherwise insufficient, to furnish security on any property owned or held by him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister mentioned a circumstance that ought to be provided against if possible. It seems that some men have two sets of cattle, one on which the Government has a lien, and the other which the settlers regard as exclusively their own property, and of which they take better care than the other. The minister says that sometimes the farmer neglects the Government stock, devoting more care to his own. It is not so much the value of the property as the cruelty to the animals that appeals to me. I do not think that the Government should have such a class of stepchildren treated in this manner.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly we should avoid any inequality in the treatment of the stock owned by settlers by any means in our power, and this is the best means I can suggest, namely, to make it an equal loss for the farmer to neglect any of the stock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The board cannot take any really effective measures to remedy this condition of things. All they consider is the value of the stock, and if they have a sufficient value they are not likely to take any further facts into consideration. If they advance $1,000 and get sufficient security they will not consider anything else.


Arthur Meighen: This is the method
adopted, to secure the same end, by large stock loan companies operating in the
Western United States. Experience has shown them that this is the only precaution they can take.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the inclusion of the whole stock in the bill of sale, or whatever form of security the board takes, prevents any partiality in dealing with the stock I would be in favour of putting it all in.
I am sure the minister would be always ready to release, on reasonable terms, any stock that a man might want to sell.
M'r. MEIGHEN: We can release stock, and the supervisors who pass from farm to farm looking after the settlers are vested with authority to exercise that power. So far as I am aware there has been no complaint as to their discretion, and there is therefore no reason why we should not take all the security there is.


[Stage Direction]
Subamendment agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section five-powers of board.
Jacques Bureau: Section fifty-nine, which
this section in the present Bill amends, is of considerable length, and the subclauses which are now added to section fifty-nine are almost as long. Section fifty-nine refers to sections sixteen and eighteen, and section five of this Bill also refers to those two sections, and I think we are entitled to some explanation from the minister. Every hon. member has not a copy of the statutes, and it is very difficult for us to know just what we are amending. Hon. members do not know what is contained in subclauses (a), (b) and (c) of section fifty-nine, and the minister should state their purport. If the minister would give a few explanations in regard to this matter it would assist us to understand it and if we are not satisfied we can put questions to him. I would first ask him to explain subsection (dl in regard to unimproved lands.


Arthur Meighen: Subsection (d) empowers the board to vary the terms of payment provided by section 16 so that the first annual instalment shall be repayable not later than two years from the date of the sale and shall consist of the accrued interest only. Section 16 as it stands provides for interest at the end of the first year. This enables the board, in the case of a settler on unimproved land, to ask for no payment for two years and at the end of the second year to ask for the payment of the accrued interest only. The settler

gets no remission; he only gets a longer time by one year. It is necessary in the case of unimproved land because he cannot get a crop the first year unless under speoially favourable circumstances he may get a crop of flax.


Jacques Bureau: If a man is paying an instalment of tflie capital yearly does this give power to the board to say that the capital which is paid yearly shall not be paid as part of the instalment 'but that the instalment shall consist only of accrued interest during two years?


Arthur Meighen: .No, he makes his first payment on the accrued interest date, but he commences to pay the capital only after the second payment.
. Mr. BUREAU: The second payment, I suppose, will be at the end of two years.


Arthur Meighen: At the end of three years. He pays nothing at the end of the first year. He has to under section 16, tout this enables the board to vary that and to defer the payment for two years. He pays the accrued interest after two years and thereafter be commences to pay the capital.


Jacques Bureau: Then, what is the explanation of paragraph (e)?


Arthur Meighen: This applies to the terms of payment on the sales of stock and equipment to be used on unimproved land.


Jacques Bureau: What is the object of it?


Arthur Meighen: It is to enable the board not to ask for anything in the way of repayment for three years instead of two years. He gets a remission of interest for the first three years by the Act as it stands, but he does not have to make 'a payment for three years under this Bill, whereas under section 18 he would have to make it at the end of two. It is another advantage to the man settled on unimproved land.


Jacques Bureau: It is to the disadvantage of the Government. The stock is perishable in that it is imore liable to disappear than the buildings and the farm itself. On the constant security you give him two years while on the lesser security of live stock, which is liable to disappear over night in a storm and which must be classified as perishable, you give him three years. Why not reverse that and on the safer and greater security give him an extension of time and on the lesser security you give him a shorter time?


Arthur Meighen: That is what we do because the advance to the settler for the stock has all to 'be paid back in six years, whereas his land has not to be paid for until the expiration of twenty-five years. It is true we do not start so soon to collect from him interest on the stock; we start a year later, but we collect it all almost twenty years sooner. The hon. member must remember also that for our stock and equipment advance we have the land as security as well, so that it does not make a great deal of difference because if there is an equity in the land we have that security for the stock advance just the same as we have it for the land advance. The reason we are asking him to have all his stock paid up in six years is because in all likelihood there would not be very much of the stock left then.


Jacques Bureau: Half of the stock would be gone in three years, assuming, as the minister says, that all the stock would be gone in six years, and yet we give him three years to make his first payment.


Arthur Meighen: It does not go, as a matter of fact, the same .in the first three as in the last three. It is in the last year that most of it would go. It should all be there practically intact in three years and it would not all be gone in six years, but normally there would be a substantial impairment of the security in six years; so that we may say, "You must have it all paid back in that time."


Jacques Bureau: There is subsection (g). What is the object of giving the board power to determine what is the status of a farm?


Arthur Meighen: Paragraph (f) means that the board shall have power not to grant to the purchaser of improved land the two years remission of interest on stock and equipment. There is no reason why a man getting improved land should not start almost at once to pay for his stock and equipment as well as his land. As to paragraph
(g)	providing that the board shall have power to determine the character of land and what constitutes unimproved or improved land on a farm, somebody has to determine what is improved and what is unimproved land. If you do not put this clause in the court will have to determine. You simply say that the board shall have the power to determine whether it is improved or not.


Jacques Bureau: Whether the land is a farm or not a farm?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It may be that three acres in British Columbia would be sufficient to constitute a piece of land an Improved farm; whereas in Saskatchewan it might require fifty acres. It depending on the circumstances in every case, the only way to deal with it is to enable the board to determine whether it is improved or unimproved land.


Jacques Bureau: What would the difference be if they found that it was not a farm as against finding that it was a farm?


Arthur Meighen: The difference would be that if it was found not to be a farm they would not have anything to do with it. I do not see the value of the words "or a farm."


Jacques Bureau: I do not know how the board can determine how it is a farm or not. I do not think a farm is determined by its area. They generally call farms, of small areas but which give big returns, ranches.


Mr MEIGHEN:: I do not see the value of these words, but they do no harm.


Jacques Bureau: I did not have time to
read section 61 of the Act as it stands. May I ask the minister if there have been any cases where agents, working under the board, have been trying to work both for the purchaser and for the board at the same time, and trying to collect a salary from the board and also a commission from the intended settler?


Arthur Meighen: Our experience has
been such that we consider the section very necessary. I could not say that we could bring home this offence to any person at the moment


Jacques Bureau: I do not want the names of any persons, I simply wish to know what is the object of the section.


Arthur Meighen: -but we have had reason to suspect that certain men who are not now in the service of the board, and who have considerable speaking ability, are of the class of those sought to be legislated against by this section.


Jacques Bureau: Who deeidel upon that
ability, the board or the minister?
; Section agreed to.
On section 7-regulations as to loans and advances:


Jacques Bureau: What is the difference
between this clause and the old section?


Arthur Meighen: The purpose of this
is to enable the board to have payments that come due on different advances mature at the same time. The intention is to have them all mature on the 1st of October, I think, in the West, and at different dates in other parts. The board desires to have the power to make due dates, on advances that are made at different periods of the year, the very same.


Jacques Bureau: Under paragraph (c) of section 63 of the existing Act the board can make regulations prescribing:
The security to he given for loans or advances, the conditions subject to which loans or advances shall be made, and the manner and dates in and at which such loans or advances shall be repaid.
Now it is proposed to add to this paragraph the following:
Including dates at which amortized or other payments shall be consolidated or commence.
Paragraph (c) is pretty broad already. Has any concrete case come before the department of the board which they are not able to settle except by the enactment of this amendment?


Arthur Meighen: The board has power
to set the manner and dates at which such loans or advances shall be repaid. But that must be read in connection with other clauses of the Act which limit them to a year or two from date, depending on the character of the advance. Now they want power to limit for a year and six months, and for that purpose to consolidate the loans and have them all mature at the same date each year. That is the explanation. If I were operating this matter myself I think I would have gone ahead and assumed that I had the power


Jacques Bureau: I should say so.


Arthur Meighen: -but the board's solicitor advises them that the power is not very clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-marks or brands to denote the board's ownership of property:
Jacques Bureau: We ought to have a
sample before us of the " lazy S " referred to here. What is the " lazy S?" Supposing there are already marks or brands which may not be in the " lazy S " but in quite a " live S " and the broad arrow referred to here may come through the " live S." There must be -registration in some province. I know nothing about these brands, I have never been a rancher, but in order to avoid

confusion it might be well to say that this mark chosen by the board shall not be used by any other rancher or any other organized company. The mark may only be used for cattle; but when it comes to agricultural implements somebody else may adopt a similar mark.


Arthur Meighen: The "lazy S" is our
undisputed property. We have made search and found that no one else has this particular brand. The branding of our animals is one of the real difficulties of the board. There are only certain men who can brand successfully and they are not very often settlers under the Soldiers' Settlement Act. At the same time making provision to have experts for branding on hand all the time is a very expensive business.


Jacques Bureau: This does not apply
merely to animals, it applies to all property.


Arthur Meighen: We want to be able to use this brand on anything. We do not want to have to go through the formality the same as a private individual has to, of registering our brand and making that registration at all the offices throughout the West. This enables us to avoid that difficulty.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: With regard to
this provision which makes it unnecessary to register brands in each province, is there not some possible danger of a similar brand being registered quite innocently? Therefore would there be any objection to having this brand registered in all the provinces ?


Arthur Meighen: If we register the '
brand we become subject to provincial regulations and we do not want to be so subject. We are not so subject with respect to registration of our ownership of anything, and we should not be in this regard. I do not think there is any danger of any other person taking this brand because the operations of the board are so widespread that this brand would be the most familiar in the Whole country. Should any one be foolish enough to adopt this brand then the Act declares " It is no good to you, you cannot use it even after you have registered it." So the contingency which the hon. gentleman fears is, I think impossible.


Levi Thomson: It is not impossible although it may be improbable. I certainly see no harm in the registration of the^ brand. If we were to declare that the registration should not be subject to any 
of the other provisions of the provincial Acts I think the difficulty which the minister fears would be overcome. It is a simple matter to provide that it shall not be subject to any other provisions except the registration. Would the minister have any objection to that?


Arthur Meighen: We do not compel him to register; he can still register if he sees fit.


Jacques Bureau: If the minister does
not want to be embarrassed by the laws of the provinces he ought at least to follow the laws of the Federal Government. I do not know anything about cattle brands, but the procedure ought to be the same as for the marking of logs. I happen to know more about log marks than I do about ranching or cattle. No one can get a log mark unless he comes to Ottawa and registers it, and before he can have a certificate entitling him to the privilege of using that mark he must make a search in the department to see if a similar log mark has not been already registered. Then if at any time he wants to purchase a mark already registered he must get a transfer from the owner before a certificate is issued to him for its use. The same procedure could apply to a cattle brand.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so. Certainly if there is a Dominion law that requires us to register a log brand or a cattle brand we would have to comply with it. But T think my hon. friend refers to some regulation prescribed by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Jacques Bureau: By the Department of
Agriculture.


Arthur Meighen: But it is made especialy for the purpose of protecting the lumber industry as an industry. It does not cover cattle, because the branding of stock is entirely a matter of provincial law.


Jacques Bureau: It is the. same with logging operations, they are purely a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: The only
three provinces where branding is used at all are Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it would be unwise to conflict with the brands in those provinces already registered, for it might cause endless trouble. Has the minister consulted the provincial authorities in regard to this pai-ticular brand?


Arthur Meighen: We have done so, and we feel we have a monopoly of the brand described in this Bill.

iMr. WILSON (Saskatoon):	In addition
to the branding, provision should be made for the transferring of the property. There should be a way of marking to indicate that the property has been disposed of. That is a common practice in ranching; when a certain brand is registered its mark of cancellation is also registered; that is, a certain figure is placed under the brand to denote that the stock has been transferred from the original owner. I think it would have been well for the minister to have consulted the registers of brands ol the three prairie provinces and ascertained that he was not duplicating a brand already registered, and in that way appropriating some other man's property.


Arthur Meighen: The method the hon.
member refers to is the prevailing method, but it would not do for the Government to adopt it, because it would admit of fraud so easily as against 'the board. All a man would have to do would be to place that cancellation mark on the property and thereby he woud be relieved, so far as the public were concerned, from all the restrictions and obligations under this section. Instead of that, as soon as a man has paid for the property, or as soon as he sells it by permission, we give him a certificate under a certain authorized signature. He can pass that certificate on to another purchaser, and in that way the Government is much better protected.


Frederick John Fulton: In registering a brand
under our provincial laws it is always stated where the brand is to be placed, whether on the left or right side, the shoulder, the flank, and so on. The reason for that it that you may know where to look for the brand. I would suggest that that' practice be followed here.


Mr MEIGHEN:: The board wants to reserve that, because it is just possible that a brand is already used at the spot they would describe, and they want to be able in that event to put it somewhere else. Also, it is pretty hard to describe where to put the brand on an implement.


Frederick John Fulton: There is plenty oE room
for three or four brands to be placed on the shoulder or flank, or on the right or left sides. I think we should be specific.


Mr. GOULD:: In connection with that
idea I may say that people engaged in the leather industry are asking those who take out registration for brands to consider carefully where they are applied, because the worth of the hide is frequently very much depreciated because o,f the branding. I
received a letter only last week complaining of that particular feature of the Bill and I think it would be a good idea for the minister to give the matter his carefuJ consideration, so that the hides of these branded animals shall not be depreciated in value.


Arthur Meighen: It is for that very reason chiefly that the Board has adopted the practice of looking after the branding itself by competent men.


Jacques Bureau: I undertsand that the
marking on the property which is given as security operates as a mortgage-more than that, that it practically operates as a bill of sale in favour otf the Government, and that the release or transfer is made by a document given by the owner or individual whose cattle or property is branded. There ought to be same way by which the public may know exactly whether or not the property is free. 'Suppose I make application under this Act, I have a lot of cattle branded that way, and I sell them to my friend from Bonaventure; an agent of the Government passes iby, he sees those cattle and he takes them. It is true the minister will answer:	"They will be released. All you have to do is to show us the document of transfer." But why should my purchaser be put to that trouble? There should be a registration of the
5 p.m. bill of sale or the chattel mortgage, so that when the property is finally released the public can ascertain that all incumbrances have been discharged and that the vendor is selling cattle that he is really entitled to sell.


Arthur Meighen: We gain the same result in a much simpler way,-and it is simplicity we are after. A man has this property, it is ours whether branded or not, but as an additonal warning to the public or as an evidence of our ownership, we brand it. That man wants to sell some of that property. If our supervisor approves of the sale, he gives the man a certificate describing the animals and authorizing their sale, and that certificate or a copy of it passes to the purchaser. Therefore, it is far easier for people if they have to deal with that man than if they had to chase to the county court office every time they were negotiating for the purpose of an animal that was branded as the property of the Settlement Board.


Jacques Bureau: The matter is so simple that it becomes rather complicated. A man has to trot up to the board if he wants to sell a steer or a cow or a plough or anything else and get a certificate showing that

he has a right to sell it, and he has to attach this evidence of the release of the mortgage to the chattel that is being disposed of. That is multiplying the difficulties.


Levi Thomson: I did not hear all the conversation between the minister and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson), but I thought that hon. member raised a point which should have received more consideration than it did. I am not very well posted on branding laws in the West, but I understand that a "vent" brand is put on below or somewhere else in connection with the original brand. It seems to me that when the interest of the Government ceases in this property, some simple mark should be provided with which the animal can be branded or some provision should be made whereby the owner can obliterate the brand so that the public would know that the Soldier Settlement Board had no further interest. Do I understand from the minister that in every case they will provide for that by issuing to the soldier a certificate showing that the interest of the Settlement Board has ceased tc exist. That seems to be rather an awkward way of handling the matter.


Arthur Meighen: The certificate is that the chattel is authorized to be sold. The other way should afford no safety to us, because all the fraudulent settler would have to do would be to attach the extra mark and our evidence of ownership would vanish.


Levi Thomson: That would be rather a serious crime.


Arthur Meighen: It would not be any more serious than to dispose of the cattle anyway; the fraudulent settler would not be taking any extra risk.


Levi Thomson: The minister
might say that he could forge the certificate. There are ways of getting over everything.


Arthur Meighen: He would be guilty of theft anyway.


John Archibald Maharg: Supposing there are two animals so similar that it is almost impossible to tell them apart, especially in the winter time when they are running out, what would happen? Supposing a man has a certificate for an animal and his neighbour has an animal exactly similar in appearance, but does not have a certificate for it. A dispute might arise as to who has a claim in case of loss.


Arthur Meighen: The certificate would designate the name of the settler who would 
have authority to sell such and such an animal, and that certificate would not be any good at all to another settler that had an animal like it.


John Archibald Maharg: But supposing the two animals are similar in appearance and branded the same-they stray away; one of them gets lost completely or killed, and only one is left. They are so similar that only by a brand can you distinguish your uiimai.


Arthur Meighen: That difficulty, of course, may arise, and similar difficulties arise in everyday life, over and over again, but you cannot help that. You would lose the whole value of your brand provided that all a settler had to do was to attach some extra mark and thus obliterate the effect of the original mark. The man who is honestly in possession of the stock is very likely to be able to prove his property.


John Archibald Maharg: Do you place the brand wherever you like on the animal?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
M r. MAHARG [DOT] Then, you are making a very serious mistake. During the winter season, when the animals are running out, if is impossible to tell what a brand is withou: clipping the hair, and if you do not know where the brand is located, how are you going to tell?


Arthur Meighen: The purpose of the board is to place that brand on one shoulder for Saskatchewan, on the other shoulder for Alberta, and on some other part, but always following the same practice, for British Columbia and Manitoba. That is the practice the board will follow so that there will be no difficulty in locating a brand.


John Archibald Maharg: Not if you follow that practice, but I understood the minister to say that he could place the brand anywhere he liked, and an illustration was given of o case -where there might be a brand where t1 e board wished to place theirs.


John Flaws Reid: Is it the intention of the board to allow the individual farmer to put on a distinctive brand of his own? Otherwise, how is he going to tell his cattle from the cattle of Tom Jones?


Arthur Meighen: That is permitted.


Levi Thomson: Has the board taken steps to find out from the different provinces if those brands are not in use in any of the provinces?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Is there any provision made for branding the increase?


Arthur Meighen: This clause applies to the increase also.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 66-insurance of property in favour of board by settler when indebted to' board.
Jacques Bureau: 
Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it would be better to add after the word "board" in the twelfth line, the words "as the interest of the board may apply.'' Then the insurance can only be utilized to the extent of the board's interest.


Jacques Bureau: He would have to assign the policy in that case too.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but only to the extent of the board's interest.


Mr. DAVIS:: Is it in the contemplation of the board that there should 'be life insurance on live stock? My experience in the WeSt has been that the rates on insurance of that kind are prohibitive.


Arthur Meighen: That is not intended.


Jacques Bureau: What other property is meant by "other" in line 8 where it says "upon property, real, personal, or other?"


Arthur Meighen: I do not see how there can be any other property than real or personal.


Jacques Bureau: I thought it might refer to something peculiar to this Act.


Levi Thomson: Subsection (2) provides that:
It shall be lawful for the board to pay such rates, taxes or assessments.
And so on. Would that be wide enough to make the board safe in paying, say, the .annual premiums? Nothing is said about those.


Arthur Meighen: That follows further on.


Jacques Bureau: Subsection (2) provides that all these moneys that are expended by the board become part of the purchase price of the property, and they are therefore secured by the mortgage. The wording is that these expenditures "shall be added to the purchase price of such property, or shall become a part of the principal." What is the difference? Why not simply say "shall be added to the purchase price of the property and shall be secured by a mortgage or lien in favour of the board? ' What is the difference whether it is part of the principal or part of the purchase price?


Arthur Meighen: There are two methods. In some cases the settler is in a position of a purchaser on agreement, and in that case these expenditures would be added to ,the purchase price; in the other case he is a mortgagor to the board, and in that case these moneys would be added to the principal of the mortgage. In reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Thomson) subsection (2) provides that in case of default to insure, we oan insure, but not that in case of default to pay the premiums, we can pay them. I think the subsection should be amended accordingly.


Jacques Bureau: The minister makes a difference between the purchaser and the mortgagor. If I buy a piece of land and give a mortgage, I am the purchaser and mortgagor. What is the difference?


Arthur Meighen: In that case you are the mortgagor. Where the board sells the land to the settler on agreement the settler is not a mortgagor. He is a purchaser, a vendee.


Jacques Bureau: A conditional sale.


Arthur Meighen: It is a distinctly western method of sale.


Jacques Bureau: A strange method.


Arthur Meighen: The best in the world in eases of thi-s kind-far better than a mortgage, because we are not put to the trouble of foreclosure proceedings at all. I beg to move that after the word "aforesaid" in the nineteenth line, the following words be added "or to pay any premium of insurance upon such property" and that after the word "aforesaid" in the twenty-first line the words "or to pay such premium as aforesaid" be added.


Jacques Bureau: Does that imply the right to pay the premium?


Arthur Meighen: If the settler insures his property but fails ito pay the premiums, as the section stood, we were not empowered to pay the premiums.


Jacques Bureau: You already have the right to insure.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but this deals with paying the premium after the property is insured.


Jacques Bureau: But subsection (2) provides that:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, if the settler fails or neglects to pay any lawful rates, taxes or assessments, or to keep such property insured.
The board may insure the property. So if the settler fails to pay the premium, the board will have the right to do it.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think that covers it. I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn,


Oliver Robert Gould: I think 'there should be some kind of connecting clause between section 65 and subsection (2) of section 66. Subsection (2) makes provision for extra expenditure. Suppose an individual has used up his one hundred per cent credit with the board, and his inventory shows that on his farm he has isix cows and three ,brood mares. Suppose that these stock breed four calves and three colts. Section 65 provides that the officers of the board piay brand these animals, but where is the board's authority for the expenditure necessary for a visit from some one who is authorized to brand?


Arthur Meighen: He iwould not make a special trip. We have a system of supervisors who periodically visit certain districts. As time advances, the number of those whom they visit is reduced. The supervisors do not bother to visit the men who have shown that they are able to stand on their own feet, and that saves expense. Where branding was necessary, it would 
simply have to wait till the occasion of the next visit. In the case of a naan who is getting on all right, we would not likely brand at all, but would leave him to do that, because it would be to his own advantage as well as ours. It is the man who is struggling and trying to get on his feet that our supervisors regularly visit, and they would take care of the branding on one of their visits.


Oliver Robert Gould: At what date is he Obliged to notify the board of these increases in his stock?


Arthur Meighen: He is not required to notify the board at all. The supervisors will find it out on the occasion of their regular visits.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported, and amendments concurred in.



OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 20 to amend the Opium and Drug Act -Hon. N. W. Rowell-Mr. Boivin the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: 
Jacques Bureau: The minister is making a classification by this amendment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The section as it stood provided that the fee should not exceed the sum of twenty-five dollars for any license. It was discretionary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is still a matter of discretion as to what sums shall be charged, but the maximum is fixed for the different classes. The retail druggist does not require a license unless he himself wishes to manufacture; but we cannot charge him more than five dollars.


Jacques Bureau: That is the maximum.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection two-penalty for importing or exporting drugs without license.
Newton Wesley Rowell: My recollection is that we had passed subclauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), and were discussing subclause (f).


Georges Henri Boivin: Subsection two of section 5A was discussed in its entirety, and some slight amendments had been made. The words "without lawful authority" were added after the word "possession" in the first line of paragraph (e); the words, "a criminal" were substituted for the word, "an" in line 36; and the word "two," was substituted for the word "five," in line 38, all on page two of the Bill. The amendments were carried but the subsection as amended was allowed to stand.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I move an amendment to paragraph (f), which I think will make the meaning clearer. Under subsection one of this section the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may make regulations in regard to the record to be kept, and it seems to me quite sufficient that in subclause (f) the entry which is required in "a proper book kept for such purposes, of the quantities of such drugs," etc., should be succinctly referred to by the words, "keep the record." I therefore move:
That paragraph (f) of subclause 2, of section 5A, be amended by striking out the words " enter in a proper book kept for such purpose the
quantities of such drugs received, manufactured, Imported, exported, sold or distributed by him and any other particulars " in the twenty-eighth to the thirty-first lines, and that the following words be substituted therefor: " Keep the record," and by striking out the word " book " in the thirty-third line thereof and substituting therefor the word " record."
The section as amended will therefore read:
Manufactures, imports, exports, sells or distributes any drug, and refuses or neglects to keep the record required by any regulations made by the said minister, or neglects or refuses to produce such record for inspection, etc.
This makes the meaning clearer, and brings the clause into harmony with the previous subsection.


Jacques Bureau: I was not here yesterday during the latter part of the discussion. I, see that the last part of the clause provides that any person convicted of a violation of these provisions shall be guilty of an offence, and liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and costs, and not less than $500 and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That was reduced to $200.


Jacques Bureau: I did not know it was.
I think perhaps it might be reduced still further.


Thomas Vien: Do I rightly understand that this subclause imposing the penalty is not finally adopted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not.


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendments have been adopted but the subsection is not yet carried.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister speaks of regulations to be made by the minister. I do not see anything in the Act itself as to how the regulations were made.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In 5 (a), first subsection, the words are inserted "with the approval of the Governor in Council the minister shall have power" and so on.


William Stevens Fielding: In the original Act, not this?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In this; this was amended yesterday.


John Alexander Stewart: Section 13 of the original Act of 1911 gives full power to the Governor in Council-


Newton Wesley Rowell: To make regulations.


John Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Vien: The definition contained in
paragraph 1 declares what a drug shall mean according to this section and it says that it includes not only the drugs mentioned in the schedule to this Act but all those that may be added to this schedule under the authority of this Act. I understand this authority to add to the schedule in the Act is contained in the original section 13.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The original section 14.


Thomas Vien: So that the Governor in Council will have power to add to the schedule to the Act a certain number of other drugs if from time to time he thinks it advisable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend evidently has not section 14 of the original Act before him. The power to add other drugs ie confined to other drugs of this character. It is power to add from time to time any alkaloids, derivatives, or preparations of the drugs named in the schedule. Chemists are constantly at work and they are either discovering or producing new alkaloids or getting new derivatives and therefore they succeed in producing some drug which will have the same narcotic or deleterious effect. The power is given to the Governor in Council to add this to the list and it then would become subject to the provisions of the Act.


Thomas Vien: We have been introducing legislation at this and the last session considerably restricting ordinary trade in Canada. We have just passed the Food and Drug Act and we are now passing another Act which is restricting general trade to a considerable extent and submitting it not only to the regulations contained in the Act but also to other regulations under the powers given by the Act to the Governor in Council. The penalty imposed by the Act is extremely drastic. You say that:
Any person who .	.	.
(a)	imports into or exports from Canada any drug without first obtaining a license therefor from the minister;
(b)	imports into or exports from Canada any
drug at any port or place in Canada which has not been named by the said minister as a port or place into or from which any drug may be imported or exported;	.
(c)	exports any raw opium or prepared opium or any drug which is not packed and marked in such manner as may he prescribed by the minister-
Even the fact that the drugs have not been packed as prescribed by the minister will be an offence under this Act.
(d)	without first obtaining a license therefor from the said minister, imports into or exports from Canada, or manufactures in Canada, any prepared opium, that is to say, any product of

raw opium obtained by any series of special operations.
And so on-becomes liable under this Act. The offences that may be committed, and which are created by this Act, are so numerous that trade in general may on some occasions, though acting in good faith, be caught by some provision of the Act and will be punished by a fine that may not be less than $200 for the first offence and the magistrate may make it as high as $500. I think this punishment is too drastic and that the penalty should be lower. I would suggest that the maximum for the first offence should not be over $100 and that there should be no minimum so that the magistrate who is hearing the case may take into account the special circumstances under which the offence is committed and may exercise some discretion in view of the circumstances in special cases. I would make a distinction between the first and second offences, and I would therefore move that the penalty for the first offence be reduced to a maximum of $100 without any minimum leaving the penalty for any subsequent offense as it is provided in the Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Probably my hon. friend is not aware of the character of the infractions of this law with which we have to deal. .There is no real trouble with the honest wholesaler, importer or druggist, but we are confronted with the gravest possible difficulty by those who deliberately go into this business for the enormous profits that may be made out of it. The one complaint we have had so far in reference to the existing law has been the inadequacy of the penalty. We have had that complaint from the authorities at Vancouver and Victoria. In the six months ending the 31st December there were 384 convictions in Vancouver alone for the violation of this law. They ask that the penalty should be increased. The men pay the penalty easily because their profits are so great. I confess that I had no idea until I came to investigate the matter what th'e ordinary prices for morphine were. Bought in the usual way the price will be about $10 per ounce. They can buy it in that way and retail it illicitly at about $120 per ounce. Opium they will get at $10 a pound and retail it illicitly at $100 a pound. They bring it into the country in the most deceptive ways. My hon. friend refers to importing-we have had in the past month a man who declared that he had some of these drugs and was prepared to pay the duty thinking by that means no doubt to escape detection. When his baggage and property came to be inspected it was found

that he was bringing in some sugared fruits, the most lucious peaches, which when examined were found to contain morphine. It was found that he had in each single peach more than $100 worth of morphine. He had $10,000 or $12,000 worth of these prohibited drugs which he had not declared and out of which, if he could have got them into Canada or smuggled them into the United States, he would have made $50,000 or $60,-
000.	You must therefore have the penalties drastic to reach these men. The Harrison Act in the United States makes the maximum penalty $2,000. We have not imposed nearly so drastic a penalty as the Harrison Act provides for, although we were urged to adopt a similar penalty. While I appreciate what my hon. friend has mentioned I do ask the House to give the Government and the department the legislation necessary to reach and punish those who are deliberately seeking for gain to debauch the people of this country or to make illicit gains by smuggling into the United1 States. There are reports from some centres that the me of cocaine and opium is on the increase, particularly among young people. In others, I am glad to say, the report is that it is decreasing; but the department desires the support of the House in enacting effective legislation to enable it to cope with the evil as it existe to-day.
'Mr. VIEN: Surely the minister does not think that a judge or a magistrate will not, in rendering judgment, in every case, take into consideration all the elements that the minister has explained. All the circumstances of the case will be put before him, and the lawyer representing the Government will certainly point out the necessity of imposing a drastic sentence. But what I desire is to protect a man who violated the Act because he did not comply with all the regulations -made- regulations that the 'Governor in Council may vary from time to time without due notification to all concerned. Technically speaking the insertion in the Canada Gazette of an Order in Council amending the regulations may be such a publication as will render any one guilty of a contravention - of the regulations liable to a fine; but as a matter of common sense such publication will not come to the knowledge of all these traders, and therefore it some cases hardship may be occasioned by the application of the law in its present form. I would therefore ask that a certain discretionary power be given to the magistrate. Of course in every case where there is a clear
and outrageous violation of the law, the magistrate will certainly apply the maximum fine; but where it is a first offence I would like the maximum fine not to exceed $100. With respect to subsequent violations by the same party the law may be left as it is.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One further word in
answer to my hon. friend. These provisions are all binding upon us by the terms of the International Convention. It is recognized that in order to control this trade the strictest penalties must be enforced. Take the case of Japan,, another country which is seeking to control this trade. Japan gives no option of a fine the penalty for violation of the law in that country is imprisonment. If abuses had arisen, or if innocent people had been prosecuted, 1 could understand the force of my hon. friend's argument. But no complaint has so far arisen of people being prosecuted unfairly under this Act, and the effort of the department is to get at the deliberate vio-laters of the law. My hon. friend says that the magistrate might take the facts into consideration. It is true that he might do so, but on the other hand he might not; and the department feels it is important that any man who deliberately violates this law should be subjected to substantial penalties. I think that in reducing the penalty from $500 to $200 we have gone far enough in the direction of leniency.


Mr. McCOIG:: In the case of information being laid against a druggist and the imposition of a fine does the informer get any part of that fine?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under the original Act
of 1911 it is in the discretion of the court to award the informer one-half of the fine.


Archibald Blake McCoig: That is where the danger lies in such a provision. It offers to some irresponsible person the opportunity of making almost a living by laying traps against responsible druggists and getting them to commit a violation of the law.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The informer cannot get any portion of the fine unless the magistrate so directs and no case has come up in the past nine years in which this provision has been abused, neither have any complaints come to the department, I should think, therefore, that if the law had worked satisfactorily for nine years we might trust it for a few years longer.


Thomas Vien: In order to show how even
a man acting in good faith may be surprised in the matter of the application of


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
Thomas Vien: I am not doing so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, my hon. friend is pleading for the trader who might be unaware of the illegality or unlawfulness of the transaction.


Thomas Vien: I am pleading for those trading in good .faith, not for the illicit traders.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I venture to affirm once more, Mr. Chairman, that there is not a single trader in opium, cocaine or morphine in Canada or elsewhere who is not fully aware of the regulations governing his trade. If he is not-


Thomas Vien: Would the hon. member allow me a question? Will he contend that all traders, even those under a license from the minister, always know the regulations prescribed by the minister as to the packing and marking of the goods?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Certainly; especially in the case of export business. My hon. friend referred a few minutes ago to the export of raw opium, and I am certain that no exporter-


Thomas Vien: I am referring to subsection (c) of section 2.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My impression is that anyone who wants to trade legally in these drugs will take good care to * obtain the proper license and keep himself fully posted on all the regulations, because it is a very limited trade, and from its very nature should be so, as it is in the interests of the community that the trade should be restricted.


Thomas Vien: You are L* favour of prohibition.


Henri Sévérin Béland: So I say that instead of decreasing the minimum it should be restored to the original figure of $500, as we know, every magistrate will apply the minimum penalty in every case.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the subsection carry?


Thomas Vien: No.


Jacques Bureau: We object to the clause carrying now, and as it is six o'clock we ought to rise automatically.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would ask the consent of the House to dispose of this subsection, as other business will be taken up after eight o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: What is it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Public Bills and orders. As I cannot be here to-night I would like to make some further progress if my hon. friend wishes to propose an amendment.


Jacques Bureau: That does hot dispose of the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. But this has been under discussion on two former occasions and I would like to get it disposed of now.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall subsection 2
carry?
G p.m. Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 3:


Jacques Bureau: It is six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
, The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 73 (from the Senate), for the relief of of Ignace Perugini.-Mr. Copp.
Bill No. 74 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Murray Gray.-Mr. Mae-Nutt.
Bill No. 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gladys Stewart Addison.-Mr. Stewart (Lanark).
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of Fedorin Cope.-Mr. Douglas (Strath-cona.)
On motion of Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster, the House proceeded to Public Bills and Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act, 1919. He said: This Bill is the same as the one which I placed before Parliament last year, with the exception that the words "on a regular route '' are struck out of the second clause, and clause 358 of the new Consolidated Railway Act which passed this House last session has been reconstructed so as to conform with the principles contained in this Bill. The object of the Bill is to place the boats on our inland waters and coastwise trade under the control of the Railway Commission as regards rates, tolls, tariff agreements and arrangements, time of call and duration of stay, and all matters pertaining to the carriage of goods. Last year the opponents of this measure spent a great deal of time in opposing the matter of minimum rates; but they will find, that that subject has been eliminated from the
Bill. They will understand that this Bill does not interfere with boats on our inland waters and coastwise trade making minimum charges.
I may be asked why these boats should be placed under the control df the Railway Commission. The reason is that the Railway Commission is a thoroughly organized, independent body of men, capable of dealing with this very subject. That board has been in existence for the last sixteen years, and I think it would be wise to place on Hansard this record. I have here a statement prepared by Mr. Cartwright, secretary of the commission, as follows:
The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada was constituted under the Railway Act, 1903, entitled an Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways. The Act was assented to on the 24th October, 1903, and came into force by proclamation of the Governor General on the 1st February, 1904.
1.	Total number of applications heard
by the board at public sittings held in Ottawa and other places throughout the Dominion of Canada since its inception to the 1st January, 1920	 6,815
2.	Total number of matters dealt with
by the board informally and without the necessity of a public Rearing, such matters, however, frequently involving a good deal of consideration on the part of the board	 10,955
3.	Total number of matters, therefore,
dealt with by the board, formally and informally, from the 1st February, 1904, to 1st January. 1920..	17,770
4.	Total number of appeals from the
decisions of the board to the Supreme Court of Canada for the period covered from the 1st February, 1904, to the 1st January,
1920	 44
(a) of this number: dismissed, 34; allowed, 8 ; pending, 2.
* 5. Total number of appeals from the 1st February, 1904, to the 1st January, 1920, to the Governor in
Council	 25
(a) of this number: dismissed, 20; referred back to board, 2; allowed, 1; pending, 2.
6.	Total number of orders issued by
the board from the 1st February,
1904, to the 1st January, 1920....	29,212
7.	Total number of files (approximately) in connection with various applications to the board covering the period from 1st February, 1904,	.
to the 1st January. 1920	 70,000
8.	Total number of tariffs filed with/
the board, freight, passenger, express, etc., covering the period from the 1st February, 1904, to the 1st January, 1920	 877,094
"This is a splendid record for the organization, not one of their decisions has been questioned on the floor of Parliament. The Board of Railway Commissioners certainly
[Stage Direction]


deserve a great deal of praise for the work they have been carrying on. They are an independent body of men who have control over the 40,000 miles of railway in the Dominion of Canada as regards rates, tolls, tariff agreements and arrangements and all matters pertaining to the carriage- of goods. On the other hand, the men who ship by boat on our inland waters and along our coasts have no such tribunal before whom they can go with their complaints. This Bill provides for control over the boats on our inland waters and coastwise trade. The Board of Railway Commissioners have also absolute control over telegraph and telephone lines, and there is not an hon. member in this House who will question my statement that if it were- not for the control exerted by the Railway Commission over telephone and telegraph rates, those rates would be double and treble what they are to-day. Every public utility in Canada is under control except boats. We buoy and light our rivers; we dredge and deepen them; we make and deepen our canals; we build docks and piers without end in different parts of the Dominion- all aids to the vessel men; but still we have no control.
Jacques Bureau: We control the waterways.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: 
Mr. BRISTOL:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Did the Haggerty-


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I know what the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) is going to say. I can divine his ques-109}
tion. I am well aware that the . Haggerty does not go to Montreal, but she was able to make that amount of money carrying twenty odd loads from Port Arthur and Fort William to Port Colborne, and when you consider the fact that in the United States ships of that kind are compelled to conform to certain rates on inland waters as well as on the coast, I think you will concede that the Haggerty has taken advantage of her position, and has availed herself of the privileges which the coastal regulations grant her. At five cents you can see what she has been able to accomplish. Take the Grant Morden, which is capable of carrying
500,000	bushels of wheat or 740,000 bushels of oats, and when you consider that she makes some twenty trips in a season from Port Arthur and Fort William to Port Colborne, you can understand what an enormous income must be derived from that source at the rates I have stated.


Mr. T. J. STEWART:: Does the hon.
member mean to say that the steamship companies in the United States come under the control of the Railway Board there in regard to freight rates on wheat?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I will deal with
that question before I take my seat.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: You are not prepared to answer now?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am prepared to
answer the question.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Answer it then.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well, I can say that they do come under control in regard to rates.


Edmund James Bristol: In regard to bulk freighters?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I will give the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) a definite statement on that before I am through.


Edmund James Bristol: Give it now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am not bound to answer the hon. member s interruptions just when he desires.


Edmund James Bristol: What is the truth?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well, I am going to
give it.


Edmund James Bristol: We are going to get it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Mr. ARMSTKONG:: Yes, you certainly are going to get it.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: Order. The hon. member for East Lambton has the floor and may not be interrupted except with his consent.	'


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, I was calling attention to the fact that these boats are able to carry enormous quantities of grain, and I was about to make a comparison with the sailing vessels of the past. The Grant Morden can carry as much in a few trips as a sailing vessel in days gone by could carry in five years; and while of course the rates then were much higher than they are to-day, they were only just abbut twice as high as the rates the Canada Shipping Company are charging from Port Arthur and Fort William down to the port of Montreal. Just look at these excessive rates and see what they mean. I feel safe in making the statement that these steamship lines on our inland waters and those that are engaged in ocean traffic are exacting from the farmers of the western provinces at least ten cents a bushel more than they ought to exact from them. Ten cents a bushel on 300,000,000 bushels of grain means $30,000,000. I have made the statement that these Boats were able to carry gram, and as a matter of fact did carry grain, at the low rates of two-half, three and four cents a bushel from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal in 1909, and now the rates are eleven and twelve cents, and there is no likelihood "of their being lowered. I wish to say something in regard to package freight, and I shall mention my own county of Lamb-ton. In 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912 the people in this country were anxious to develop the fruit industry, and 300,000 fruit bearing trees were planted. The fruit growers shipped their product successfully and had control of the markets of the Sault and those at Port Arthur and Fort William. But what happened? When the merger was formed, up went the rates in connection with package freight, and these fruit growers were driven out of the markets I have mentioned and the people from Michigan wpre able to come in and take these markets away from them. The same may be said in regard to the largest vegetable growers' association in the Dominion, which is located in Lambton, and also of a number of manufacturers and shippers in that district. These exorbitant freight rates had

been exacted to such an extent that they effectually drove out the trade during the years following those I have mentioned. The freight rates were increased from 20 cents to 76 cents per hundred pounds, and when I called attention to this fact in Sarnia the other night, Mr. Peter Paton, who represents the steamship interests in that town, made this reply: "Well, we did not want to stop to take on these goods." I want to say that carload after carload was waiting for shipment, and they were left to rot on the docks at the port of Sarnia simply because the boats would not call. This gentleman made the statement: "Oh well, we could make our connections at Port Arthur or Fort William to better advantage." Mr. Speaker, what they did do was to sail by and make more millions by neglecting this port, and the same thing has happened on lake Ontario. Mr. Paton opposed me the other evening in the city of Sarnia, and I have a copy of the speech which he delivered on that occasion and as reported part of it is as follows:
Mr. Armstrong took a flyer at my old company, the Canada Steamship Lines. I am not going to dispute a single word of it. He stated their statement is published, and it is a fact that they have made profits that are more than enormous, but it must also be remembered that the Canada Steamship Lines is purely and simply a war baby, nothing more or less. It got its opportunity during the war, the same as the munition makers, and of course took advantage of it, and they did make all the money that Mr. Armstrong says they made, and with regard to their capital, it is also as he states.
But if Mr. Armstrong knew more about that company or knew much about it prior to the war which was declared in 1914 he could tell you with truth that on that day the Canada Steamship lines was bankrupt beyond control; In fact, I doubt very much if at the end of that season we could have paid our current accounts.
He looks upon the Canada Steamship lines as a war baby. Let us look at this organization. In 1912-13 the merger was formed. I had better read from the annual statement as prepared by the Canada Steamship lines. This is the annual statement for 1919 appearing in the March issue of the Canadian Railway and Marine World:



CAPITAL STOCK.

[Stage Direction]
Preference stock	$12,500,000
Common stock	 12,000,000
Debenture stock	 7,120,506
Sinking fund	 1,361,773
Look at some of the profits they made:

[Stage Direction]
Ships at Dec. 31.	1918:	$20,078,575.98Add net additions for year, being excess of additions to fleet over ships lost	and	sold.. ..	5,619,247.00
Real estate add net additions
for the year		296,872.00
Other fixed assets add net additions for the year	 398,343.00
Less depreciation reserve.. ..	4,564,921.29
Investments	 '551,709.00
Leases, contracts and good will.	8,424,626.00
Surplus		6,764,910.00
Surplus arising from sinking
fund		130,000.00
Government war tax reserve..	1,215,000.00
What does that mean? It simply means that this merger that started out with a cash capital, as far as I can learn, of $6,000,000 to-day has assets amounting to over $50,000,000. How did they make that money? They made that enormous sum of money out of the pockets of the people of Canada by exacting from them excessive freight rates; there is no question about that. When Mr. Paton talks about this company as a war baby, I would like to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to the need of taking a greater toll than $1,200,000 out of a company that can purchase boats and add to their assets to the amount of over $5,000,000; that can set aside for depreciation and repairs $4,500,000 and that claims to have assets of $44,500,000 and a surplus of $6,764,000. This merger was only enabled to take that enormous sum out of the pockets of the people of Canada by reason of having these largely increased freight rates. Mr. Paton has called attention to another matter. He says:
Not so many years ago several boats ran between Toronto and Montreal, calling at Bow-manville, Cobourg, Port Hope; Oshawa, and way ports. These ports have no coasting service now.
Why? Simply because they could make more money by passing them by.
He says that:
In the year 1908 there were three or four companies carrying package freight between Montreal and Port William, and competition became so keen . between these water lines that they went to the Government and asked that the rate should be put under the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners, and the reply they received was: "No, we prefer water competition."
They had water competition in 1908 but I do not think there is a man in this House who will dare to say. that we have any water competition on our inland waters or along our coasts to-day. Then there is something else that I should put on record. Mr. Gildersleeve, who represents the Northern Navigation Company, which is part of the Canada Steamship lines, addressed a letter to the president and members of the Sarnia Chamber of Commerce and he made use of these words:
In 1918 the Canadian Pacific railway, which has a through railway line between Eastern and Western Canada, approached the Canada Steamship lines and Grand Trunk railway and said: "if you will withdraw your boats trading from Sarnia to Port Arthur, we will withdraw our boats trading from Port McNiehol to Port Arthur and there will only be operated the All Water line from Montreal, Toronto, and Hamilton to Port Arthur, and the All Rail line between Eastern and Western Canada, and instead of your water line making its differential rates under the lake and rail rates, which they now do, you will take your differential rate under the all rail rate, which between the East and Port Arthur is much higher than the lake and rail rate. This arrangement "will give you (the Canada Steamship lines) sufficient extra earnings to more than pay the interest on the investment which you have in the Northern Navigation Company and as we will carry the freight all rail that now goes lake and rail we can more than afford to pay interest on our boats which have been trading from Port McNiehol to Port Arthur.
Had this idea been received favourably by the Grand Trunk railway and the Canada Steamship lines, the lake and rail rates would have been withdrawn, and the public would have paid higher freight rates.
I am placing that on record so that the members can see how these large corporations attempt to deal with each other in the way of exacting from the public enormous tolls. What happened? The Chamber of Commerce in Sarnia had been sending protests against this Bill. When I had the privilege of placing before them my material in connection with it, and after the Dominion Marine Association had sent up Mr. King, their most prominent lawyer, to that city, for an extraordinary meeting the representatives of that organization were good enough to send me the following telegram:
Sarnia Chamber of Commerce goes on record as strongly in favour of the Armstrong Bill, holding 97 for the bill, 70 against. When you consider that officials of Northern Navigation Company have been persistently canvassing the membership in opposition to this Bill this defeat in their home town speaks volumes.
(Sgd.) George French, Manager Lambton Growers Association.
I had the privilege of addressing the London Chamber of Commerce. For years past we have been receiving protests from the London Board of Trade and Chamber of Commerce against this measure. Last year for instance after a protest had been sent to Ottawa, I re>
ceived the following letter from Sir Adam Beck, dated September 27, 1919:
London, Sept. 27, 1919. Mr. J. E. Armstrong, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Armstrong,-
I attended the Chamber of Commerce executive yesterday in this city, of which I
[Stage Direction]
happen to be a member, and the matter that you are so enthusiastic about, and that you have striven so long to bring about, was discussed in a letter from the Dominion Marine Association re the Armstrong Bill which was read ; resolutions from Manufacturers' Associations and various Boards of Trade and Chambers of Commerce were also read opposing the Bill. I urged that the board do not interfere, that I was satisfied that it was a most desirable one, and that the rates of lake transportation should be regulated and controlled. However, I was defeated by a vote of four to three. I do not know who or what is behind the movement, but I imagine railways and others are.
I wish you every success and hope the Bill will pass. I know you have been at it for many years, so good luck to you.
I remain,
Tours sincerely,
A. Beck.
I merely place this le*ter on record to show that only small groups in these Boards of Trade get together and send in protests, and that members should not pay too much attention to the statements made by such organizations. The public cannot organize in respect to matters pertaining to the carrying of products on our waterways. Eight millions of people scattered throughout this country are not able to organize but if we had a tribunal like the Railway Commission to stand between .the producers and consumers of Canada, you can depend upon it we would be in a very much better position than we are today with iespect to lake freights.
Let us consider some of the statements that have been made in regard to freight rates on water carriers. Majors Lewis of Toronto, who was at the Sarnia meeting, said that freight should be carried by water for one-tenth as much as by rail. Mr. Joseph E. Ransdell, president of the National Rivers and Harbours Congress, made the following statement:
As to the relative cost by the two methods, there can be no difference of opinion. The Interstate Commerce Commission reported that the average cost of moving freight by rail in 1906 was 7.48 mills per ton per mile. The statistical report on the lake commerce for 1906 by Colonel Davis, U.S.E.C., shows it cost to move over 51,000,000 tons through the Sault Ste. Marie canal last year .84 of one mill per ton per mile or one-ninth of the average rail rate.
Prom the best information I can get, after a careful study of the subject, I am convinced that waterway, transportation in this country, under favourable conditions, costs only about one-sixth as much as the average cost by rail. The above remarks apply to the lakes and rivers.
The Interstate Commerce Commission in an investigation they made two years ago, on the actual cost of moving a ton of freight a mile by water and by rail showed a ratio of one to ten in favour of water; 100 miles of rail to 1,000, miles of water.

Senator Townsend, in a speech made to the Lake Carriers' Association in Detroit on January 22, 1914, made use of this statement:
The lake rate on freight passing through the Soo locks in 1907 was eight-tenths of one mill per ton-mile, while the average rail rate of the United States in that year was 7.82 mills per ton-mile. In other words, the rail rate was more than nine times higher than the lake rate.
Here is a further statement:
On the railways, from Buffalo to New York, the lowest rate which has ever prevailed, has been 4 cents a bushel for wheat, equal to 3 mills per ton-mile. Competent authorities state that, under the most favourable conditions, the lowest rail-rate possible is 25 mills per ton-mile, or 35 a bushel, but such rate has never yet been reached. Comparing this lowest possible rate of 25 mills per ton-mile, with the lowest lake-freight rate previously given .275 mills, it will be seen that on this basis one ton can be carried 900 miles on the lakes at the same price as for 100 miles on the railways.
My object in placing these statements on record is that members may realize and appreciate the fact that with the enormous expenditures that have been made in improving our waterways, lake vessels ought to be in a position to carry the freight offering at an altogether less rate than they are carrying it at to-day.
Well, these gentlemen say, "Storms on the lakes interfere with our trips." But what about the operation of our railways? It is estimated that during the winter season the railways of Canada are only able to handle about sixty per cent of the business they are able to carry during the spring, summer and the fall months. When you take into consideration the amount of money invested in Canadian railways, the enormous sum spent in repairing rolling stock, and in improving stations, and the vast army of men employed by those railways as compared with the small number that find employment on lake vessels you cannot come to any other conclusion than that losses in operation of shipping on our lakes and on our coasts are not to be compared with the great losses on our railways.
Now, let us take into consideration the development in the carrying capacity of lake vessels. Not many years ago a vessel that could carry one hundred thousand bushels of grain was regarded as having reached the maximum; but to-day vessels are in operation that can carry five hundred and seven hundred thousand bushels of grain. This greatly reduces the overhead charges.
Another matter to which I wish to invite attention is the exorbitant insurance rates

charged by the insurance companies that are acting in conjunction with the vessel men. While in Winnipeg not long ago my attention was called by shippers of grain in the Northwest to the fact that it was impossible to get a boat from this merger without insuring in the Interlocking Insurance Company the grain that went to that vessel. The grain men claimed that the extra amount of insurance which they would then have to pay would usually amount to thirty or forty per cent more than the rates charged by American companies. We have 8,500 vessels on the Canadian register employing forty-five thousand hands. _ The Government appointed a grain commission to grade the farmers' grains, and grain elevators were built in the Northwest to accommodate that grain. The farmer knows exactly what he pays when he goes to the grain elevators with his grain; and when it is en route to the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William; but after the grain leaves those elevators and is placed in the hold of the eastbound vessel, he has no conception of the rate he is charged from the time the grain leaves port until it reaches its destination. The vessel men are free- to make whatever charge they please; they can exact any toll they wish in the form of freight rates on grain products. They are a law unto themselves. We have built grain elevators at Port Arthur, Fort William, Port Colborne, Montreal, Quebec and St. John for the purpose of aiding the vessel men and the latest appliances have been installed for the handling of grain. Boats carrying three or four hundred thousand bushels of grain can call at one of these elevators and be loaded or dischaiged in a few hours. All these facilities can be considered as aids to navigation. Furthermore, the United States last year placed an embargo against Canadian vessels doing a coastwise trade on their shores.
This Parliament placed a similar embargo on American boats doing a coastwise trade around our shores. What happened? Immediately afterwards the freight rates on grain from the West jumped to twelve cents per bushel as against the rate in previous years of three or four cents per bushel, notwithstanding the fact that our customs .regulations surround ship-owners with all kinds of safeguards, and the Department of Trade and Commerce assist them not only in the home market, but in foreign markets as well.
It is necessary to bear in mind that the cost of transportation enters into the price of everything that is bought and sold; of
everything that we eat and wear; of our homes-in their construction, furnishing and maintenance. This cost must be paid, and it is paid by the producer and by the consumer; the middleman and the manufacturer are not worried very much about these transportation charges.
It is true that the Board of Trade of Winnipeg has protested against this measure. But let us for a moment examine the organization in Winnipeg that is interested in the transportation of grain and other products on these waters. Take the Grain Exchange, for instance. The members of that exchange.are not worrying about the freight rates that the farmers in the West are paying, for whatever Tate is charged between Fort William and Port Arthur and the grain markets of the world is deducted from the amount that the farmer receives. Liverpool is looked upon as the most important grain market in the world, and it is there that the prices for grain are fixed, and the freight rates are alway deducted from those prices.
When we take into consideration the fact that 125,000,000 tons of freight originated on our inland waters last year, and the enormous amount of business that is involved in the handling of this great volume, we realize what a wonderful country we have. Our fertile fields, our exhaustless mines, our vast forests, and manufacturing plants combine to make the territory served by our great inland seas not only the most productive on this continent, but the most productive in the world.
Ocean-going vessels will soon be passing up to the head of the lakes, and many of our inland poTts are looking forward to that day. We must see to it that our Great Lakes are not exploited for the benefit of the few. In this connection I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the time is coming when we should place on these waters some of the ships composing our National Merchant Marine, so that we may be able to know exactly what it does cost to transport freight from, say, Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal. If our National Merchant Marine have only been able to make $1,500,000 of a profit in the past year, compared with the tens of millions of dollars profit made by the Canada Steamship Company, then it is time that we placed our boats o'n more profitable'routes. It may be interesting to hon. members to know that the Canada Steamship Company last year made a greater profit than that made by all the gold and silver mines of this country.
[Stage Direction]
Unless this Bill becomes law we may depend upon it that excessive freight rates will continue. In 1912 the Saskatchewan Government appointed a Grain Commission to investigate grain rates on the ocean as well as in Canada, and while I have not the time to devote to matters connected with that report, I cannot refrain from reading a statement which is contained in the final pages of it. The Commission reported that:
The people of Canada pay more freight on the grain to reach Liverpool than do the people of any other country in the world.
That statement is based on the rates in force in 1912, which were, to say the least, reasonable. I wonder what that commission would say to-day if they were investigating current rates. The rates that are being charged on Canadian grain to-day are more than the Argentine rate, although
6,000	miles away, and more than Australia and New Zealand, although 12,000 miles away.
Last year. our export and import trade amounted to $2,235,000,000. It is estimated that $1,200,000,000 of that sum represented the freight carried by water. This shows what a few cents per bushel or per hundredweight would amount to on such an enormous volume of' traffic. Canada, in the years to come, with its greater population and consequently greater production, will do a still greater business. The representatives of the Department of Agriculture advised me last year they estimate that $640,000,000 worth of agricultural products alone were exported from this country in that year.
This question is a national one. The principle of the Bill is sound and should appeal to the man who" tills the soil, who develops a mine, who runs a factory, or who carries a dinner-pail. Reduced freight rates will mean increased profits to the producer and lower prices to the consumer. During the next decade our greatest increase in production will be in the grain belt of our great West, 2,500 miles from the sea. It is true we have 40,000 miles of railway to transport our products to the sea, but it is also true that we need to develop our great water facilities. Our Canadian waterways have been the chief factor in building up the towns and cities along their shores, for they are nature's own highways. We have 2,200 miles of waterways leading into the very heart of this continent, the first '1,100 miles from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Montreal having sufficient dcnth 
to 'accommodate boats drawing 30 feet of water, while on the other 1,200 miles boats drawing 14 feet of water can proceed in perfect safety.
When we open the barriers of the river St. Lawrence, an opportunity will be afforded to ocean-going vessels to pass through another 1,200 miles of water to the head of the Great Lakes. We want to see to it that we have control over these boats before we attempt to spend any more money on the development of these great waterways. No individual nor corporation would dare to undertake the expenditure that Canada has undertaken in that regard. Canada has assumed these responsibilities, and what has she received in return? Increased rates and an unregulated, irresponsible mercantile marine. We must either regulate and control this organization, or open the door to foreign vessels to come in and trade along our coast. Why control our railways and not our waterways?
I had promised the hon. member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Bristol) that I would endeavour, to the best of my ability, to prove to him that the boats in the United States are under absolute control, and I expect to be able to prove it I have here the issue of February, 1920, of the Canadian Illustrated Monthly published by the Canada Steamships, Limited, and I am sure my hon. friend will not find fault with statements contained in that publication. I quote from this publication the artiele headed: "The future policy of the United States Shipping Board," by Hon. John Barton Payne, Chairman United States Shipping Board:
In 1917, the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation launched 106 ships, totalling 708,970 deadweight tons. Of these if delivered complete 49 vessels, amounting to 302,115 deadweight tons In 1918, the Emergency Fleet Corporation launched 812 ships, amounting to 4,244,126 deadweight tons, and delivered to the Shipping Board 532 of these ships completed, representing a tonnage of 3,026,006 deadweight. In 1919, we have launched 1,065 ships, representing 5,982,277 deadweight tons, and actually delivered 1,181 ships with a tonnage of 6,385,123 deadweight. There remains of the War Construction programme, 524 ships of 3,661,767 deadweight tons. These will he completed and delivered by August, 1920.
Besides this, we purchased or contracted with Japan for the building of 45 ships of 372,023 deadweight tons. The total of these Japanese ships actually received and in service is 18, and 148,323 deadweight tons.
These activities and the taking over of German and Austrian cargo tonnage have given the United States 8,700,917 deadweight tons of steel ships, 1,799,123 deadweight tons of wooden ships, 63,000 deadweight tons of composite

and 10,000 tons of concrete ships, a total tonnage of 10,573,040 deadweight, excluding the 3,661,767 tons to be completed in 1920.
We have lost-
And this is what I want to call to the attention of the House as some hon. gentlemen have been claiming that the United States have not control over boats on their inland waerways or coastwise trade:
We have lost, reconveyed to former owners or sold 194 ships, representing 1,274,371 deadweight tonnage. Some of the ships now in operation we will sell for use by foreign flags, but the fleet as a whole, representing 1,688 ships of 9,298,669 deadweight tons will be operated under the United States flag as a permanent merchant marine, and will be available to serve the trade routes to South America and other countries.
I have here the report of the President of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation for 1919. I do not dare to take up the time of the House in calling attention to many of the statements that are contained in this report, but these are some of the subjects discussed:
New trade routes and freight rates. Reductions in Atlantic rates. Sale of ships.
They have been able to sell only very few of them.
Continue to build ships. The Government have directors on corporation board. Bill to operate and dispose of vessels. Rates, tolls and arrangements. Countries to which these vessels are allowed to go. Exports and imports. Rates on established trade routes. Coastwise trade permits on the lakes.
I shall have to deal with this last to some extent because some hon. gentlemen are constantly saying that the United States have no control over the boats on their inland waters. The report, General Order No. 1 says:
To Managers and operators and officers of Division of Operations:
A decentralized plan of organization for the division of operations will become effective as of May 1, 1919.
General offices, Washington, D.C.
Districts with headquarters and assistant directors or district agents as named will be as follows:
Great Lakes district-Great Lakes, including St. Lawrence river to Montreal; assistant director, Cleveland.
There shall be for each district:
1.	An assistant director or district agent, with a staff adequate to care for activities of the district. Where necessary, agencies directly under the districts will be created.
2.	An assistant comptroller or district auditor and staff sufficient to meet the volume of business of the district, with agency auditors at agencies where necessary.
3.	An assistant treasurer or cashier for each district or agency where necessary.
All instructions, assignments, etc., to be directed and issued by the general office, through assistant director of district agent.
This is signed:
J. H. Rosseter, Director of operations.
There are other directions with regard to the Assistant Directors on the Great Lakes, and this is the final statement:
Great Lakes District.
Cleveland:
Assistant Director, J. L. Crosthwaite, Perry-Payne Building.
Chief Inspector, construction and repair, J. N. MacRae, Perry-Payne Building.
Auditor, S. B. Westerfield, PerryPayne Building.
I have been placing these on record merely to show that the United States have control, not only of their coastwise trade, but of trade on their inland waters. To go still further, I quote a statement from the New York Journal of Commerce of April 19, 1919, as follows:-
Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is any control of rates
shown by the document the hon. member has read?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the hon.
gentleman had kept his seat until I was through with this article, I am sure he would have been satisfied that the United States have absolute control. This is an article from the United States Journal of Commerce of April, 1919. I can produce similar documents, but this will surely be sufficient to convince the hon. gentleman:
New Great Lakes Freight Rates. Charges on coal, ore and grain agreed on. Conference in Washington between Shipping Board and Grain Corporation officials and shipowners and shippers fruitful.
On ore, 80 cents per ton; on coal, 42i cents per ton, and on grain from Lake Superior to Lake Erie and from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, April and May loading 34 cents per bushel and 3 cents per bushel respectively; June, July and August loading, 3 cents and 3 cents respectively ; September, October and November loading, 3J cents and 3 cents respectively, and December loading including winter storage on vessels 5 cents and 5 cents respectively. The grain rates to Georgian Bay and Goderich were fixed at 4 cent per bushel; to Port Huron, i cent, and to Collingwood, i cent per bushel, under the Lake Erie rate. The rate to Detroit was made the same as to Lake Erie ports.
Surely that is sufficient to convince the hon. member. But if not, I will give him more definite information. Here are two letters I received from the Division of Operations of the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation:

Perky-Payne Building, Cleveland, Ohio, October 28, 1919.
Prom: H. L. McDonald,
Asst. Director of Operations,
U. S. Shipping Board,
Cleveland, Ohio.
To: Hon. J. E. Armstrong, M.P.
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-
Replying to your letter of October 25, relative to the rates on grain established for lake boats during the past two years.
The rates established during the last two years have been made by the United States Grain Corporation, which is part of the Government Food Administration.
And in the other letter he gives the rates, similar to those I have already quoted. Is that not sufficient to convince the hon. member? Oh, but these gentlemen will say that the United States has given up the fixing of ocean rates. I have here a copy of the Shipping Act of the United States which contains the most drastic kind of legislation in regard to the control of shipping. Over there they have also control over ocean rates and terminal charges. I have also other booklets here. I have only time to read the headings - Ocean Rates and Terminal Charges; Stowage Factors for Ship Cargoes; Rules of Practice, United States Shipping Board. There is also a large document entitled " Trade and Shipping between the United States and the Principal Regions of the World in 1914 and 1918, prepared by the Division of Planning and Statistics, United States Shipping Board." I have also here a complete list of tariffs, showing the rates that are charged by the United States Shipping Board to all parts of the world. Here is the United States Bulletin with the latest rates available between the United States and the principal ports of the world; another booklet entitled " Steamship Fuel Stations in Foreign Countries and Non-Contiguous United States Territories, prepared by the Division of Planning and Statistics, United States Shipping Board."
Lest some hon. gentleman will say tonight that the United States has _not control over ocean-going boats, I will read a paragraph from the Magazine of Wall Street, dated April 17, 1920:
The Shipping- Board has been showing a tendency to greater activity now that it is in more powerful hands. The Jones Bill for the control of shipping provides for greater powers to the board, allowing it to go into new construction with the proceeds of the sale of the war-built ships, giving it possession of the War Department docks and terminals, and giving it authority to make regulations in regard to shipping. Already a more active regulation of shipping rates has been put into force by the

board on the basis of existing legislation, but its powers in this respect will be strengthened.
I do not know what further evidence hon. gentlemen require to convince them that the United States Shipping Board has absolute control over the boats not only on the inland waters and in coastwise trade, but over ocean-going vessels too. Gentlemen have been coming before the Railway Committee year after year, making statements, and they have been repeated on the floor of this House, to the effect that these rates were only effective during the war period; but the statements 1 have placed on record show that as recently as a very few days ago the United States Government had absolute control over their boats no matter where they were, and that they are going on extending their control in every conceivable way. Canada is practically the only civilized country in the world that has not control over her shipping and yet some hon. gentlemen would have us go on in the same way and let the men who are interested in these great shipping combines in our country make their tens of millions of dollars out of the people as they have been doing in the past. I think it is up to the members of this House to take an active interest in the matter and to deal with it definitely to-night. Do not let the present state of affairs continue from day to day and from year to year, and have Canada looked upon as a country that is unable to deal with an important question of this kind.
I hope 'that the Minister of Railways will not ask me to send this Bill to the Railway Committee. It has been before the Railway Committee before, and year after year I have gone before the committee and endeavoured to convince them that this Bill was in the public interest. I am surprised that hon. members on both sides of the House continue to oppose this measure. It is a measure of national importance. We want 'to remember the fact that the northern half of this continent is ours. It is ours to maintain, it is ours to develop -and it 'is ours, if we will, to destroy. The foundations of a great nation have been well and truly laid. We have built
40,000	miles of railway, and have spent over $400,000,000 in developing our waterways. We have absolute control over our railways as regards their rates, tolls, tariff arrangements and agreements and everything connected With those matters, but we have no control over the -boats that ply on our inland waters, in our coastwise trade, or across the ocean. Justice will be the basis of commission control. Do not wait until next year. "Do it now," is a

good motto. The principle of the Bill is sound. The restrictions provided in the Bill a.re fair and reasonable. The interests of the producer and consumer are reasonably safeguarded. The marine interests -will be accorded fair treatment by an independent tribunal, while just and equitable consideration will be accorded to all who use our navigable waters.
I hope that the members of this House will not allow this Bill to be sent to the Railway Committee. You must rremem-ber that the men who appear before the Railway Committee are either representing the large shipping interests in this country, or are directly concerned in those interests. The men who are opposed to this measure are the shipping interests and the large manufacturers who are receiving special treatment at the hands of these shipping combines. Who are the men who are supporting this legislation? Year after year I have been [DOT]'putting on Hansard articles in support of this legislation. The Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, at the last meeting ptf the Dominion Board held in Ottawa in January last, passed the following resolution:
That this association strongly approves ot the proposal to place coastwise and lake shipping under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, as is provided for in the proposed amendment to the Railway Act.
And that the Dominion Board instruct the Dominion Executive Council to use all the moans at its command to secure the passage of the proposed legislation.
I have the following letter from the Canadian Council of Agriculture:
613 Boyd Building,
Winnipeg, November 18, 1919. J. E. Armstrong, M.P.,
Petrolea, Ont.
Dear Sir:-In accord with the request of your letter of October the 18th dated from Ottawa, I beg to inform you tbat the Canadian Council of Agriculture at its meeting last week considered the question raised in your Bill amending the Railway Act. The following resolution was passed by our council:
" That this council is of the opinion that the lake shipping and coastwise traffic in Canada be brought under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners."	.
Yours very truly,
N. P. Lambert, Secretary.
Then I have the following communication from the Legislature of the province of British Columbia:
April 2, 1919.
Sir,-I have the honour to forward to you, herewith enclosed, for your consideration, a Minute of the Executive Council of the province of British Columbia approved by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on the 26th
ultimo recommending that lake and river transportation rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway system in British Columbia be placed under the oonttrol ot the Railway Commission of Canada
These are only a few of the representations that have been made to me from time to time in support of this measure. It is obvious that the small shipper and producer is not able to come before the Railway Board or the Railway Committee to urge legislation of this kind, for the reason that if he did the shipping interests would see that he did not receive much consideration. These men know it. On the contrary, you will find coming before that committee representatives of the shipping interests with all their powerful organization. There is not a port of any importance in this country that l}as not a thorough organization of shipping interests who are doing their utmost to defeat this measure. I therefore appeal to hon. members to see that this Bill goes into committee to-night, so that we may have it passed at the earliest possible moment, because I think I have made it perfectly clear that it is eminently in the public interest.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: (Comox-Alberni): I simply rise, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question of the hon. member. I have heard a great deal about rivers and lakes, and about Ontario and the Canada shipping lines, etc. I want to assure my hon. friend that I do not own a dollar's worth of watered or any other kind of stock in any steamship company. I should be glad if my hon. friend could suggest some remedy for our trouble in British Columbia. The people in the territory which I have the honour to represent are crying for ships and more ships, and if there is so much profit in steamship companies I cannot understand why those people have not been able so far to get ships for their purposes. We have four corporations in British Columbia, and many people in my part of the country have been pleading with me for four or five years to induce the steamship people to put boats on to get freight delivered to various islands and to convey mails. TJp to the present time, however, I have not been able to induce these four companies to do anything. Hon. members from British Columbia will appreciate this statement. We should consider this question from an intelligent standpoint, and I would like my hon. friend to tell me, if there is so much profit in these steamship companies and corporations, how it is that on the Pacific coast we cannot get even a small boat to take freight and mail to these various places.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The best answer I can give the hon. gentleman is to refer him-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: -to the statement I have already read.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The
hon. member has already exhausted his right to speak and unquestionably he is not in order in replying to questions asked by any other hon. member. Only by unanimous consent of the House could he now answer a question. The House is not in committee and the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) will have an opportunity of answering all questions wrhen he exercises his right to close the debate on the second reading.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I be privileged to say that the Provincial Government of British Columbia passed unanimous resolutions which I read a few moments ago in support of a measure such as I am now advocating.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: We have very few lakes and rivers where steamship companies can operate in British Columbia.


Edmund James Bristol: The matter which the hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House not only this year but for the last six or seven years is of course one of national importance, and if the facts as stated by him were accurate in every particular there could be no doubt that he has made out an overwhelming case for his Bill. But so far as I am personally concerned I have listened to the same statements from him, not merely on this occasion, but also some years ago when the hon. gentleman for the first time introduced this legislation, and when he was given a committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to hear every one in reference to the subject, and the whole matter was explained very carefully by the ablest men in the shipping business; and I suppose when all is said and done they were the most competent to give an opinion.


An hon. MEMBER:: From their point of view.


Edmund James Bristol: It was then pointed out' what the effect of this legislation would be on the shipping trade on the Lakes, and I think that my hon. friend was shown very clearly that the statement that there was no competition .so far as grain was concerned was an absolute absurdity. And I

will tell you why. The grain is the chief product that comes down from the Canadian West and its price is of vital importance not only to farming interests but to every one in the country. It comes to Port Arthur. How much of that grain goes by the Canadian route and how much by New York? And what is the competition that exists between the American boats taking grain to Buffalo from Port Arthur and the Canadian boats taking it down to Port Col-borne? I am not referring at all to rail competition. But when I tell you that the American boats sometimes beat the Canadian boats to the extent of carrying nearly 75 per cent of the grain of the West you will readily see that it is because they are able to give lower rates. Now, why are they able to give lower rates than - the Canadian freighters when it is a case of competition, as it usually is for grain? The matter is simple. The price of wheat is fixed in''Liverpool so far as Canada is concerned, and if a man has grain in the Canadian West he has either the Buffalo-New York route to Liverpool or the Port Colborne-Montreal route; and I am sorry to say that the New York route is nearly two cents cheaper per bushel than the Canadian route for the reason that at New York you get most of the tramp ships of the world. New York, of course, is the greatest seaport in the United States and it is one of the greatest in the world. The tramp comes to New York, takes grain to Liverpool, carries a cargo of manufactured products to South America, comes up the coast with a cargo from South America to New York, and gets a cargo of grain again, and so is always kept loaded. The tramps going by the Canadian route up the St. Lawrence are faced with the dangers of navigation and their rates of insurance are therefore higher than on the New York route, and besides this they frequently have not- cargoes. It is only when cargoes are scarce in New York that you can get tramps coming up the St. Lawrence. So the New York rate is lower. In the early spring and fall you have at Port Arthur the great competition of the big American boats running on the Port Arthur-Buffalo ro.ute, and these large American freighters take 500,000 bushels or more. What other advantage has the American freighter over the Canadian? It has this advantage, that the coal trade and ore trade of the Lakes originate in the United States. It is not possible for the Canadian boat to carry coal from port to port on the United States coast, but it is perfectly possible for the big American freighters to take coal

and ore from the United States to Canada. When the grain trade for Canadian boats is slack and the boat is laid up you have the American boat busy in the ore and coal trade. My hon. friend prefaced his speech throughout Canada by speaking of the enormous earnings of the Canada Steamship Company, the .watered stock and other matters of that character.
I have here the first annual statement of the Canada Steamship lines issued in December, 1914. The company was formed on December 15, 1913. Mark the date-December 15, 1913, and not December, 1912. The war broke out in July, 1914, and for the first year of the company's operations I have the statement showing that they made a loss of $59,000. My hon. friend talks about the company raising the rates. I:f the rates had been raised, they had not been raised very successfully if they resulted in such an adverse balance sheet as that. My hon friend made the statement that the Canada Steamship lines started with a capital of $6,000,000 He is out just $10,000,000, because they started with a capital of $16,000,000 and their assets were $26,000,000 His statement of the capitalization is quite correct; that is $12,500,000 of preferred stock, $12,000,000 of common, and $9,000,000 of bonds. The assets as valued by appraisal companies at that time and accepted by London bankers were $26,000,000. That is in the annual report of the company and yet my hon. friend, when he was in London the other day, and a long way from here, discusses that matter in this way:
I have facts under my hand that no man dare to dispute. I have the material to back up any statement I make to-day. The Canada Steamship Company formed a merger in 1912-
That is not accurate.
-with the Richelieu Navigation Company.
That is not accurate either.
Their boats were taken in and the actual capital invested did not amount to $6,000,000. I made this statement on the floor of Parliament, and I made it in Winnipeg. They floated a company for $12,500,000 of preferred stock, $12,000,000 common stock, $7,000,000 in bonds-
And so on.
That of course is quite correct, but you will see how close he is to the assets of the company.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Edmund James Bristol: You may ask anything
you like, with pleasure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I made a similar statement in Sarnia and Mr. Peter Paton who represented these gentlemen-


Edmund James Bristol: Mr. Paton was not a
director of this company and never was; he was an' agent and employee and what statements he made I do not know.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point
out to the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) that he did not ask a question.


Edmund James Bristol: I have answered his
statement. I am speaking from the balance sheet of the company. A public man in making statements of that kind must assume his responsibility for them and I propose to put the statement of my hon. friend where it belongs. My hon. friend quoted from the annual statement for the year 1919, and stated that the sum of $5,619,247 represented the net additions to the fleet for the year. I want to say that in 1914 the company made no money because the war was on. What happened was this: The British Government appealed to Canada Steamship Lines and other ship-owners in this country to come to their aid with shipping and do everything they could to assist shipping on the high seas because of the number of boats that were being sunk by torpedoes. The Canada Steamship Company took 26 ships off the lakes and spent about $100,000 on each of them to enable them' to pass the Lloyds inspection for ocean business. Eight of these boats were torpedoed and the others lasted through the war. Shipping went up in value from 200 to 300 per cent and these boats that went on the high seas were eventually sold for from two to three times their book value; in fact there were three boats of this steamship company that were sold for $2,000,000 which were valued on the books at a total of $450,000 for the three. There has been a great increase in the assets of the company but that great increase was not derived by taking excessive rates out of the farmers of the West but it was derived from the enormous increase in the value of ships as a result of which boats on the high seas were worth from three or four times their original value. My hon. friend spoke of the Shipping Board, the Wheat Board and some other board in the United States fixing rates. Everybody knows they did fix rates and everybody knows that the Wheat Board of Canada fixed rates during the war. What rate did they fix? They fixed a rate of 14 cents during the latter part of the war and since the rate fixings ceased, as my hon. friend says, the rate

is 12 cents. I do not know what it is today because the rate varies from day to day and hour to hour in the busy season. My hon. friend is concerned this year about the maximum rate. I do not know how you are going to work out a maximum rate with American shipping coming .into Port Arthur when we are not able to put a maximum rate on ships coming from the United States. Suppose you were to put on a maximum rate the only result would be that the American boat which is not under our control will get the business above the maximum rate and the Canadian will lose the profitable trade. Then you have this curious state of affairs-suppose there were no American boats and you set a maximum rate; the steamship companies having fixed this maximum rate-


John Flaws Reid: Are the
American ports closed to Canadian ships?


Edmund James Bristol: Do you mean:	Can a
boat run from Canada to Buffalo?


John Flaws Reid: Yes.
Mr. BRISTOL. Yes, certainly. All the American ports are closed to Canadian ships in the coastwise trade but in the fall our government has frequently allowed American ships to come into our coastwise trade notwithstanding the fact that we are trying to build up shipping and the shipbuilding industry in this country. Coming back to this question of the maximum rate, what happens is this? Towards the end of the season there are several countries, such as Greece and Italy and others, seeking our grain. They are on the Winnipeg Exchange bidding against each other and the broker who must cover himself has to get his rate to the port of destination before he can fix the price he should pay for his grain. If you have a maximum rate you either have to give it to the first comer or you leave it to a shipping clerk to allot the space and the individual or the Government that wants the grain most and is willing to pay the best price to the farmer for his grain, and pay the shipping company whatever rate the broker and the shipping company agree upon, cannot get the shipping space. It is not the shipping company that fixes the rate now; it is competition that fixes the rate. I think that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who is a great believer in free trade will thoroughly appreciate what competition means in a matter of that kind. England, the country where the hon. gentleman was born has abandoned rate fixing absolutely 
and at the present time there is free competition upon the high seas. But, during the war, England controlled rates. By taking possession of the merchant marine of Great Britain in 1917 as she practically did, and paying the ship owners twelve or fourteen shillings per ton she made a billion or more sterling for the British Treasury because when she charged her rates to France, and Italy she charged them enough to pay all expenses, and properly so, and British shipping was one of the great bulwarks that helped England to win the war.
Now coming back to the question of competition I want to say further that the United States Government have abandoned -my hon. friend should know the fact because I have it direct from Washington -these rate regulations that he speaks of. My hon. friend has been referring to April of last year; I am talking of April this year.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What I read was under the date of April 17.


Edmund James Bristol: Yes, but April, 1919. A despatch on the subject reads as follows:
Competition Restored.
Shipping Board Vessel Operators Make Own Rates.
Washington, March 3, 1920.-Competition in ocean shipping rates was restored to-day by an order of the Shipping Board withdrawing all freight tariffs heretofore published, and leaving the matter of rates in the hands of the individual operators of Shipping Board vessels.
Heretofore the rates for Shipping Board vessels have been fixed by the board, and they were changed several times to meet competition with British shipping. Recently officials came to the conclusion that in order to promptly meet cuts in rates by foreign ship operators and also by private American lines, the question of rates should be left with the 160 or more operators of Shipping Board craft.
Now coming back to this allegation that the Canada Steamship Company "took it out of the poor farmer." In the first year of their operations they met with a loss of $59,932. The next year and the three following years they were operating under war conditions and the wheat board fixed the rates and if the rates were fixed too high this is not attributable to the Canada Steamships or any other shipping company but to the Government board. This year they are up against American competition the same as they always were in the past and the rates are lower than during the war.
My hon. friend has sought to score a * point by reason of the large expenditures made by the Government of Canada on aids to navigation. My hon. friend should re-

member that all the other civilized nations of the world spend money for this purpose, and it is not charged to the account of the ships of that country hut is for the benefit of ships of all countries. No vessel that is under British control pays anything extra by reason of the fact that the waters through which they pass are equipped with lighthouses, bell buoys and other aids to navigation. These facilities are free to all vessels. When it comes to harbour improvements or matters of that kind the reason they are undertaken is because everybody knows that water transportation is cheaper than rail transportation. Therefore every city and town in the country that can possibly have water transportation is going to secure every possible aid to navigation so that ships can pass freely to and from the port. They do not ask where those vessels are registered, they are only too glad to have them. In basing his argument on the expenditures for this purpose my hon. friend might as well complain of the expenditures for lamps on the streets of a city, and matters of that kind, facilities that are provided so that pedestrians may safely traverse the streets. Everybody in this world is under more or less regulation, and there should be a certain amount of intelligent regulation in a matter of this kind. But if there is open and free competition, and if the result of that open and free competition is fair dealing all round it is surely better to leave matters in that condition than to attempt to fix a maximum rate which, as I pointed out, leads to a very anomalous and impossible position.
I will make a further statement in this connection: During the war Sir Norman Hill, one of the greatest shipping authorities in England, came out most strongly against a maximum rate, not only on the grounds I have indicated, but also on the ground that it led to this result: a shipping clerk has the matter under control, and if half a dozen people want the accommodation, and there is a maximum rate in effect, it led to favouritism. The shipping clerk favoured his friends rather than the person, or the country, that most needed the shipping space. The result was to put upon this shipping clerk, or some other official of the kind, the responsibility of saying from hour to hour, and from day to day, during the period when the demands for shipping were most urgent, who should get the shipping space that was available.


John Flaws Reid: Will my hon. friend tell us what the shipping rates were on wheat last fall?


Edmund James Bristol: I could not tell my hon. friend. I do not keep track of matters of that kind.


John Flaws Reid: I thought my hon. friend was representing the Canada Steamships.


Edmund James Bristol: I am not acting in that capacity here. I am a director of Canada Steamships, but I do not know anything about their rates. When my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) made the statement he did as to the capital invested in the business and as to its financial position I thought it proper to call attention to the facts. And let me say that he is mistaken as to the extent of this company's control of steamers. Canada Steamships have twenty-five per cent of the lake vessels, and ten per cent of the total of the Canadian Merchant Marine. Of course men like Mr. Playfair who are strongly opposed to Canada Steamships, and have large steamship lines of their own, would offer them the strongest competition they can put forth, quite apart from the American competition, which is, of course, the greatest of all.
If there is any question any hon. gentleman wishes to ask me I shall be only too willing to answer it now.
On the question of rates, I think I have shown clearly that there is the freest and greatest competition in the world.
I want to say a word or two>
in reply to what my hon. friend said with respect to bulk freighters. I say without any fear of contradiction that bulk freighters are not undeT the United States Government control at all, and their operations are not regulated unless they are running between railways on a lake and rail route. If they are they come under the Railway Act just the same as the vessels which belong to the Canadian Pacific and run on a lake and rail route. However, the American bulk freighter that carries the ore, the grain and the coal on the Great Lakes is a competitor for any grain that comes out of the Canadian West, and will be as long as the two countries are located side by side.
With respect to the question of an increase in rates, I want to say that not only has the cost of building ships gone up enormously, gone up to the extent of about two hundred per cent over the cost of a few years ago, but wages have gone up from one hundred and fifty to three hundred per cent. Coal, which only used to cost $1.30

per ton at the mine, to-day costs $3.25. Furthermore, the cost of oil, rope, and all accessories that are used in connection with ships have gone up from two hundred to three hundred per cent. I would ask my hon. friend to consider whether the extent of increase of these costs is at all comparable with the increase in the price of farm products. For example, wheat at one time was worth only ninety cents a bushel. I do not know what the price of wheat is to-day, but I do know that the price went as high as $3. I hope the farmer will always get a fair return for his work, because I think no -man earns his money harder than he does, and farming is a basic industrial industry. But when it comes to the question of shipping rates, you have here as free competition as you can get and the rates are always lower than those charged by the railways.
My hon. friend made another statement. He said that it cost more for grain coming from the Canadian West to Great Britain than from the Argentine Republic and from Australia to Great Britain. That may be, I cannot dispute the accuracy of the statement, but I would point this out:	The
route from the Argentine to Great Britain is entirely by water, or practically so, and the same is the case -with shipments from Australia, as compared with a long rail and lake haul in Canada, and of course dt is the long rail haul that puts up the price enormously on the grain of the Canadian farmer. I would appeal to my hon. friend to treat the shipping companies more fairly. Do not keep attacking a company from yeaT to year unless it is doing something wrong; do not make hugely exaggerated statements as to profits which do not exist and never have existed. Do not try to excite a prejudice against this great enterprise, but rather endeavour to treat it fairly and try to build up the shipping interests, which are of such great value to the country. It is in accordance with the law of supply and demand: That the more -ships you have the lower rates you are going to secure. And if you deter people from building ships by your constant attacks on the business of shipping on the Lakes and elsewhere, and if you threaten them with what you are going to bring about in the way of control you certainly are not going to help the industry or the country either.
Then my hon. friend speaks about the question of ports of call. He says that the fruit-growers in Lambton have been greatly handicapped by the character of the service given by the fast express boats tuh-

ning between Sarnia and Fort William, and which could only stop at the Soo long enough to put off small quantities of freight, but not long enough to unload large quantities of fruit and make their railway connections. Of course, any boat is glad to take freight, but if it is running on a passenger service, connections have to be made, and they could not be made if my hon. friend's fruit was handled. I suppose as the result of not being so handled that fruit had to be shipped by rail. But where boats vary in size from 100 tons to 14,000 tons, and where the facilities for loading and unloading also vary at the different ports of call, and where even the character and volume of the labour obtainable is also a varying quantity, it is impossible to make rates on a mileage basis which will be uniformly fair. That is because the profit made by a ship depends on the quickness with which you can unload one cargo and take on another. In other words, at Port Colborne you may be able to unload your cargo of grain in twelve hours and take on another load, but if your boat is kept there three or four days while other boats are being unloaded you are losing money. The same thing applies at other ports.
As a matter of fact the rates on our inland waters and even on those of the United States are fixed on the Atlantic ocean. When the Government began to build a National Merchant Marine'I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Bal-lantyne) had in view giving the farmers of this country the benefit of those ships during the grain season in order that they might get lower ocean rates, because there is where the cut has to be made if we are going to reduce rates below their present level. The competition between New York and Montreal has gone on for a long period of time, and the basis of our deepening the Welland canal has been to improve the route from Montreal so that grain would not go to Buffalo but could come down in bulk and not have to be trans-shipped at Port Colborne from a big freighter of 500,000 bushels to a small freighter of 100,000 bushels. No doubt when that work is completed it will materially help the rate so far as Montreal is concerned as against New York. But while there are enough shipping companies on the Atlantic ocean to form what they call the Atlantic conference for the control of freight rates 'on the high seas between Liverpool and New York or Liverpool and Montreal, I can assure you, Mr. APRIL 27, 1920
Speaker, that so far as lake transportation is concerned, there will be a very bare living for any boats on the Great Lakes. For that reason the Canada Steamship Company has gone on the high seas to endeavour to protect itself from the Atlantic conference and to be able to carry their freight straight from the West to Liverpool. I believe that in the future as they become more powerful they will be able to compete on fairly even terms with the Atlantic conference, and by building more ships and treating our shipping in a generous fashion we will be able to reduce rates and make the general rate position more favourable for the people of this country.
As regards passengers and matters of that kind, I may say that the Canada Steamship Company has carried over a million and a half passengers during the past year without an accident, for which the company is very grateful. But I am not able to see, with the free and open competition that prevails so far as Port Arthur and Fort William are concerned, how the
10 p.m. Bill of my hon. friend is going to help the situation in any possible way. On the other hand I am satisfied it will prove unworkable and a distinct injury to the transportation interests of the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this Bill mainly because the hon. member who has introduced it has made one or two statements which I think ought to be set right before the House. He intimated that there was an organized lobby against this Bill. I wish to disassociate myself from any such influence.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I beg to differ !rom the hon. gentleman. I never made use of any such statement, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I am bound to accept my hon. friend's correction, but I know that on several occasions to-night he stated that undue influence had been brought to bear on various organizations throughout the country, and as a result of that undue influence telegrams and letters of objections had been sent here.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He also referred in most emphatic terms to hon. gentlemen who had on previous occasions opposed this Bill before the Railway Committee.
Another reference I wish to correct is that to small groups-I took his words in this connection-of Boards of Trade control-110
ling these Boards of Trade in their representations. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, [DOT] a resolution which I desire' to place before the House showing clearly the attitude of the Vancouver Board of Trade, which consists of perhaps nearly 2,000 members, and is composed of a large number of bureaus representing the retail and wholesale merchants, the shipping interests, and so forth. When my hon. friend introduced this Bill last year I had every desire to see it receive the most careful attention, and while at the time I doubted the wisdom of the measure, I sent the Bill to the Vancouver Board of Trade, with the request that they give me the benefit of their views. After the session closed I addressed the Board of Trade briefly, pointing out the arguments of my hon. friend as well as I could, and asking them to give his Bill very careful attention. They referred the Bill-not to th,e Shipping Bureau, as might have been the natural course to follow, but to the Wholesale Bureau. The wholesalers naturally represent the large shippers, that is, the element or group of citizens who use the shipping facilities to the largest extent, and if those gentlemen did not know of any grievance, or if they did not approve of the Bill, their attitude was certainly worthy the attention of this House.
The Wholesale Bureau went into the matter with very great care, and my colleagues and I attended a number of meetings at which it was discussed in great detail. They brought in a report, and with the permission of the House I will read it as it clearly sets forth their views. It is embodied in a letter from the secretary of the Vancouver Board of Trade addressed to me in which he states:
I beg to give you herewith a copy of. the report of the Wholesale Bureau of this board on the Armstrong Bill which was unanimously adopted by the board at the regular monthly meeting held on the 10th inst. (February).
Now comes the resolution:
That whereas Mr. J. A. Armstrong, member of Parliament for Lambton, Ontario, proposes to again introduce in the coming session of the Dominion House of Parliament a Bill known as the Armstrong Bill,
And whereas, this Bill, in brief, provides for the operation of steamboats on the inland and coastal waters of Canada, under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners,
And whereas, the adoption of this Bill by the Dominion Government would eliminate free competition which now prevails, and would result in a higher cost for transportation,
And whereas, there would be a tendency, if this Bill was passed, to eliminate all competition, due to the fact that the operation of steamships would be under the control of a board,



Therefore be it resolved that the Wholesale Bureau of the Board of Trade reports to the council that they are opposed to the Armstrong Bill, No. 8, in its entirety.
This report, Mr. Speaker, was submitted to the council of the Board of Trade, and later to the whole board and unanimously adopted. I wish to emphasize the importance of this, because I can assure the House that the subject matter was given the most careful consideration.
Mr. hon. friend has stated that the object of the Bill is to bring the steamships of our inland and coastal waters under the Railway Commission, which, according to him, is a sound principle. I wish to bring to the attention of the House one or two thoughts in connection therewith. The principle upon which the railways were placed under the Railway Commission was that a railway is given a special franchise, and that its trains run over a given route that cannot be changed. It is desirable that any enterprise which receives a monopoly should be subject to restriction. That is a sound principle, and that is the principle which my hon. friend says applies to this Bill. Let us see if it does. In connection with water transportation, any vessel may enter into competition with any other vessel. This is the vital point; it, in fact, answers the whole contention and, in my opinion, disposes of the whole controversy. Let me fake this up first in connection with coastal trade. Any Canadian or British vessel can enter into coastal trade in competition with any other vessel. As regards ocean trade, all vessels enter into competition, the only distinction being the freight charges. I want the House to consider the effect of control, and with the permission of the House I will apply, as an illustration, operations with which I am very closely acquainted, namely, the Canadian Pacific steamship service on the Pacific coast. The Canadian Pacific run a line of steamships from Vancouver and Victoria north to Prince Rupert, calling at pe 'haps twenty or thirty places along the route Some of these points of call are very unimportant, some being what may be called in railway language, flag stations,- that is, if there is no signal out, the vessel will not stop unless it has passengers or freight for such a point. We shall assume that a tariff is filed under this Bill; that a fixed rate is made for this service, and that the company is compelled to call at given times at these various points, because that is really what the Bill intends to give power to the board to enforce. In the fall season, we have a big salmon pack on the Pacific 
coast and there are canneries which may turn out thousands of cases of salmon to be loaded. A vessel coming from Prince Rupert to Vancouver might stop at one cannery knowing that the salmon was ready, and it might spend four or six or eight or ten hours at that point loading that large cargo. Then, it continues its voyage, somewhat behind its scheduled time, it is true; but it passes up other points, knowing that another vessel will be coming along the same or the next day, and, perhaps, having no more room for freight and no freight for those points. If this legislation should pass, it is probable that the inhabitants of some of these small places will insist upon this vessel calling regularly; and if that is insisted upon, it cannot possiby maintain its schedule. Should it endeavour to maintain its schedule, it would have to stop at this large cannery of which I have spoken for only an hour or two hours, and it could load only such freight as it could take on in that time, whereas, under present circumstances, the vessel will stop and take on the full quantity of freight. That is only one illustration of the difficulties that would arise.
This is another illustration which I think is important. If you place restrictions on a transportation company-and again I use the Canadian Pacific as an illustration-if you . compel them to file a tariff and to observe a regular schedule, you have an obligation to protect them against competition. The last clause of the Bill provides that:
No such water carrier shall engage in the business of transportation, whether of freight or passengers, until such carrier shall have submitted to and the board shall have approved its standard freight or passenger tariffs.
You have an organization with a regular line of steamships with millions of dollars invested, working out a fixed schedule under the direction of the board. Along comes a small vessel which wants to enter into competition with this line.; but before it can carry a pound of freight, before it can enter into competition, it must come to Ottawa, or wherever the board may sit, file a tariff and have it approved. We shall assume that this splendid existing organization has a tariff of an imaginary figure of 100, and we shall assume that the small vessel that is poorly equipped, not so luxurious nor efficient, comes along and files a tariff of 75. Is not the first company going to oppose approval being given to the second tariff? That is certainly what will happen. And, as I say, if you impose

restrictions and conditions upon the first applicant, you have an obligation to protect him in the tariff that you compel him to operate under. In railway matters, a railway is not allowed to lower its freight rates until it receives the permission of the board; and why? Because there may be some unfair competition with a tariff already filed by another line:	That is the
principle adopted in connection with railway transportation. As regards transportation on our coastal waters, absolute freedom of competition is the rule; any vessel at all may enter into the business. If a large quantity of freight is offering, vessels jump in and get a part of it.
I will give another illustration of how this legislation would affect our coastwise trade adversely. The heaviest traffic occurs in the summer months, when you have the tourist traffic, the heavy movement of height, such as mining and logging machinery, and all that sort of thing; and in the fall there is the heavy salmon pack. Those are the large items of freight we have on the Pacific coast, plus the tourist traffic, and to handle it all requires all the vessels that we can put into operation. Late in the fall, maybe about November, that business will drop off, and the result is that vessels are pulled off various routes; some are tied up for the winter and others are put on other routes. They are changed around as the trade changes and as conditions and the freight offering demands. Under this Bill, that could not be done; a company would have to come to the Board of Railway Commissioners and get permission before they could pull vessels off.
This is another illustration of the utter impracticability of this legislation. Just a few years ago one of the Grand Trunk Pacific boats ran ashore and was wrecked. As this boat was on a very important route, what did the company do? They took another boat off its existing route and put it in the place of the boat that was wrecked, allowing the remaining boat to take care of the business on the other route. That could not be done under this legislation without an order of the board, so that you would be tied hand and foot. Thus, from almost any angle at which you choose to look at this question, you will find that the inevitable result will be to handicap the operations of the water-borne trade and to increase the rates.
My hon. friend (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) quoted certain rates in 1912 on the Great Lakes, ^nd I would call the attention of the House to this fact that nearly all of my 110i
hon. friend's arguments were based on the movement of grain on the Great Lakes. He quoted a rate of 24 cents on grain in 1912, and he gave it at that part of his speech as an illustration of a splendid rate, a rate that should be maintained, if possible, right along. Forgetting that he had advanced that argument, about half an hour afterwards my hon. friend quoted from a grain commission in Saskatchewan, and he read from that grain commission a complaint, that the farmers were losing money in the Great Lakes in carrying grain from Fort William east.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am sure the hon. gentleman has no intention of misquoting me. The 24 cent rate was a rate that was charged in 1908, and it was 1912 when the Saskatchewan Grain Commission was appointed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Virtually, the same rates obtained in 1912.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Three cents or thereabouts. This is the point I wish to make: Suppose we did control the rates on the Great Lakes from Fort William to Port Colborne, or any other point in Canada, would it make one whit of difference in the rates that now exist in competition with American vessels? Canadian vessels cannot carry grain at a higher rate than competing American vessels. We know that one of our handicaps to-day is the enormous amount of Canadian grain that is passing through Buffalo, and one of Canada's problems is how to get this grain moving through Canadian ports, Montreal for instance., But we are fearfully handicapped by. nature; that is the long and the shoit of it, and it is nature and competition that have fixed the rates in the past.
The House should not be misled by the high freight rates that have obtained on the Great Lakes during the past few years. Any one who has given any study to freight rates at all knows that in all parts of the world shipping rates have gone up to an abnormal extent simply because of the exigencies of the war. Here was a cargo of freight that was urgently needed at a given point. Perhaps it was munitions of war. The. shipper of that cargo or the nation receiving it would pay an enormous sum to get it delivered, not because of the value of the goods, but because of the necessities of the case. That applied to the whole shipping world, and the

condition was, of course, aggravated by the sinking of so much tonnage.
Another point to which I wish to draw attention is this: My hon. friend said-I took careful notes, and if I misquote him it is rather because he was unhappy in his delivery than that I was inaccurate in my notes-that before we undertake this enormous expenditure in the development of our canals we must control our steamship freight rates. iMy hon. friend does not correct me, so I assume I have quoted hini accurately. Now, Mr. Speaker, what are we developing this great canal system for? It is so that the water-borne traffic of the world can get up to the head of the Great Lakes. Will my hon. friend say that he is going to control the rates of that class of shipping?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why not?
Mr. STEVEEJN8: You cannot do it unless you shut that shipping out.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I say-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has spoken, and he has his right to reply.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend cannot control shipping rates on these vessels without shutting them out. Let me make that more clear. I say that we are going to spend these huge sums on our canal system in order to invite the shipping of all countries of the world to come up to the head of the Lakes; in other words, to make Port Arthtur a seaport instead of a lake port. If that is not the object we should not have started the undertaking. If it is our object, while you may control in an arbitrary, and I think an unjust, manner the rates of Canadian lake shipping, you certainly cannot control the rates on French, and British and Norwegian shipping that comes from France and Britain and Norway to the head of the Lakes, because those are foreign ships and the freight originates in a foreign country. My hon. friend ought to know that, even if he does not appreciate it now. A reference has been made to a resolution passed by the British Columbia Legislature. My hon. friend, when he read that resolution, was facing the other way, and I did not hear him very clearly, but I think the resolution referred to the Canadian Pacific lake and river steamship service. My hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not definitely, if I remember correctly. .
[Mr. Stevens.!


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would my hon. friend kindly send me the resolution?	[DOT]


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My material has
gone up to Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will stake my reputation on the statement that it referred to the Canadian Pacific lake and river steamship service. Now under the existing Railway Act, freight which is carried by water and rail, that is, where the routing of the freight involves both, is now under the control of the Railway Commission. While I did not have the honour of being sent a copy of this resolution, in the face of the fact I have just mentioned I cannot for the life of me understand why such a resolution was passed. The whole idea was, as near as I can gather, that in some mysterious manner we were going to lower freight rates by passing this Bill. If it would by any possibility lower freight rates, I would give my hon. friend my support; but I am convinced, after a most careful study of the -question, that the result would be to raise rates rather than lower them. I will read the resolution. It is from the Acting Under-Secretary of State for the province of British Columbia, and is as follows:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the. rates of lake and river transportation systems owned and controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway in British Columbia should be under the control of the Railway Commission of Canada.
These rates are already under the control of the Railway Commission with the exception, perhaps, of the rates from some small point of call from which a steamer will carry freight to another local point on the lake, but where the freight is carried through, and ninety per cent of it is, the rates are under the control of the Railway Commission.
I should like to call attention for a moment to the Bill itself. The first clause of the Bill deals with traffic accommodation. I shall not weary the House by analysing the Bill in detail. I think I have already pointed out the general principles sufficient, in my estimation, to warrant the House in rejecting this Bill. In the first clause of the Bill you will find numerous instances of this kind; I shall cite only one. We are to give to the Railway Board, mark j'ou, control of traffic accommodation. Now, any hon. member of this House, or any citizen who has given any thought at all to water transportation knows that a large number of coasting vessels have very poor accommodation. They have, perhaps, ordinary cabin accommodation for passengers, but they do not aim to carry passengers; that is

not their object. Being within the terms of the Canada Shipping Act, however, they do occasionally carry passengers, although their main business is the carrying of freight, and they enter into that freight business in a manner which I might call general in its form; that is, they have no particular routes to follow. They are coastwise tramp steamers, if I might use that term-one of the most useful instruments of transportation; they are one of the main factors in keeping down freight rates, and passenger rates too for that matter. Now under this Bill the privileges, the liberty and freedom of movement of this class of -vessel, which as I have said is one of the main factors in reducing freight rates, would be entirely eliminated, or so restricted as to make it unprofitable for these vessels to operate.
Before I sit down let me say this: Through lake-and-rail freight on the Great Lakes is already under the control of the Railway Board, so there is nothing^new so far as that is concerned. Let me say also, so far as the United States is concerned, that none of the bulk cargoes are under any control whatsoever as to rates in the United States. Let me repeat: No ship of Am-can registry carrying a bulk cargo on the Great Lakes is under any control whatsoever as to rates. In view of these facts I feel that the passage of this Bill would be inimical to the interests of the public at large, and that it would tend, if anything, to increase freight rates, and to restrict the freedom of movement and liberty of ships.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: My object in rising is to place on
record a communication from the Montreal Corn Exchange Association with regard to the Bill the second reading of which the hon. member for Lambton has moved. This communication is as follows:
Montreal Corn Exchange Association.
Office Board of Trade.
Montreal, March S, 1920.
Sir,-With regard to the Bill Introduced into the House of Commons on Friday, 5th Inst., by Mr. J. E. Armstrong, proposing to place the tolls and tariffs of water carriers under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, I am to say that the Committee of Management of this association earnestly hopes that you will use your influence toward procuring the rejection by the House of that Bill.
The reasons for this association's objection to Mr. Armstrong's proposal have been so fully stated on the numerous occasions when Mr. Armstrong introduced similar legislation in the past, that it is needless to recapitulate them here' further than to say that, in the interests of the grain trade via the port of Montreal, the continuance and growth of which Is of such vital concern to the port and indeed to the
country, it is important that wrater carriers be left free to make such rates as market conditions may warrant from time to time, and that grain shippers may be. In the future, as they have been in the past, in a position to take advantage of the lowest rates they may be able to secure by negotiation with the water carriers.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Tour obedient servant, ' J. Stanley Cook,
Secretary.
S. W. Jacobs, Esq., M.P.
I do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that I have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter of this Bill to address the House at any great length. I am impelled to vote against [DOT]the Bill by reason of the fact that this important Montreal institution is opposed to itv I was also impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). He evidently has been studying the literature which has been supplied to us from time to time by the owner of the launch Narbethong. Unfortunately I have not the time to give it as close scrutiny as the hon. member. As for the Bill, it has been before the House ever since I have had the honour to have a seat in this Chamber, and I understand that for many years before I came here this legislation was trotted out by the hon. member for East Lambton. There is one thing for which the hon. member can be commended with regard to this Bill, and that is, his persistence; he does not know when^ he is beaten. He brings this Bill before the House year after year in the hope that it imay receive a better fate than it had the year before. It has now become a hardy perennial, and we should all be disappointed if the hon. gentleman did not bring it before the House in due course in the same way as the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Glass) introduces his flax resolution. When the time comes I shall have much pleasure in voting against the Bill.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Coming from a city which .ships as much by water as any other city in the Dominion, I think I would be derelict in my duty if I did not raise an objection to this Bill. I do mot think that St is necessary that I should take up much time of the House, because the absurdity of the arguments of the hon, member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is apparent on their face, and hon. gentlemen who. halve followed him have shown that his contentions are based more on private .considerations than on any regard for the public interest. I have before me a large number of telegrams expressing disapproval of the Bill in as strong term3 'as it is possible to use. I

shall not Tead these telegrams, but I may mention the sources from which they come: Walter Woods & Company, merchants; C. W. Kirkpatrick, publicity agent; W. B. Dunn, International Harvesting Company; Foster Pottery Company, Limited, manufacturers; Simmons & Evel Company, manufacturers; McLarens, Limited; Burlington Steel Company; International Harvesting Company; Tuokett & Company; Slater & Barnard, Limited; Laidlaw, Bale Tie Company; Frost Steel & Wire Co., Limited; B. Greening Wire Company; Charles N. Peebles, wholesale spice company; The H-0 'Company; Hamilton Bridge Company; G. S. Dunn & Company; H. E. Waterman, Esq., Hamilton Harbour Commission; J. B. Judd & Company; The Hamilton Mirror & Plate Company; Hamilton Coffee & Spice Company; Dowdswell, Lees & Company, Limited; Wilkinson & Kampass; Steel Company of Canada; Canadian Knitting Company and National Drug Company of Canada.
I also have a letter which I am asked to read to the House. It is from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and although I regret to take up the time of the House, I feel bound to place this communication before hon. members. The letter reads as follows:
As a matter of easy reference I am quoting hereon our telegram of protest sent you on March 9th last asking your very best assistance towards Withdrawal or defeat of the Armstrong Bill having to do with control of water carriers within the Dominion.
"Since 1914 Mr. J. E. Armstrong, member of Parliament for East Hamilton, has continued his harassing efforts to amend seotion 358 of the Railway Act asking that water carriers be placed under jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. This effort continues notwithstanding the unanimous dissent of each joint committee and the non-support of a single member of the various joint committees beifore whom lengthy and expensive evidence has been submitted from time to' time protesting against the objectionable efforts of the proposal. It appears unneasonaJMe that the business interests of Canada Should be forced; year after year into defending a position based on the judgment of any single representative. This company again state our belief that such legislation could only interfere with trafUc and discourage the reconstruction of our new lake freight carrier lines. We trust that in the interests of Canadian shipping generally you will make every effort towards withdrawal of Mr. Armstrong's amendment and defeat should the amendment go before the joint committee and House. We would refer you to the evidence on file."
As has already been explained this continual effort on the part of Mr. Armstrong is causing shippers generally throughout the Dominion both annoyance and anxiety, the latter because we on the outside realize fully the uncertainty of the political arena at all times as well as

the susceptability of certain political interests to coincide in a trading way with the proposers of measures about which they frequently understand very little and the only fear we have in connection with this Bill is that it may be brought up at some time when the House is largely occupied by the opposition possibly to the Farmers' party and others of the same nature and through general misunderstanding, and possibly with the spirit of good will to the proposer, be carried through.
We are advised through the Canadian Manufacturers Association that this Bill comes up on Monday next and at a special meeting of the local executive of that Association a resolution was passed empowering the writer to act on behalf of all members of the association, all of whom have jointly filed their protests from time to time, this by urgently placing before yourself and Mr Mewburn the necessity of continued opposition if protection against the measure is to be assured.
We fully appreciate that it is not opposed by the Government as the Government and that every member has an open voice. Under such circumstances we believe that we must ask a full rally of all members who are thoroughly interested in the desires of the industrial and commercial interests of Canada.
Therefore may } suggest that in the event of this Bill when before the House looking dangerous that some decided demand or request be made for the production of all opposing evidence that has been submitted under great expense by shippers from year to, year as the Bill appeared before various joint committees and was decisively defeated at each successive hearing, the only assenting voice that of the proposer, Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong is not a shipper and as far as can be ascertained does not represent shipping interests to any degree whatsoever, but on his own statement we believe that the entire effort on his part is based on personal grievance; the instance that of leaving a oar of fruit some years ago by one of .the water carriers either through oversight or impossible loading.
I am decidedly opposed to any regulation of our waterways likely to place them on the same basis as privately owned railroads, and possibly to give the railroads undoubted control of the waterways under operating agreements with some one, or as the oase may be several steam boat lines.
It seems to me that everything that can be thought bad for lake and river commerce is in this proposal, and as far as I can see this is without one good redeeming point. It would mean that our free waterways are gone' forever to monopoly of joint rail and boat Interests. The independent could never exist without separate docks and separate railway terminals.
Under regulation every railroad could refuse to become a party to any tariff but those of one line, perhaps their own. This would of course mean that all independent boat lines would be prohibited the use of railroad docks arid terminals, and it is needless to say that without these facilities no line in Canada could exist.
It could not even help the interest asking for this regulation, as no power can compel boats to oall at any docks, and tariffs issued would not include some now depending upon competition for service.
The independent carrier would be a thing of the past, as he could not contract with any shippers without first issuing tariffs, and it is

pointed out that this would, he a long process if they were not acceptable to the railroads.
In other words, they would only reach from water point to water point, without any assurance of being able to reship a carload.
If this is good legislation, may I ask for what purpose the Water Boards of Toronto and Hamilton are striving to create free docks or wharves, and this under Government assistance, so that monopoly of our waterways cannot come about. It may be pointed out that we at the present time in Canada have one line of 'boats only, but even so this is bad enough. However, this condition can always be treated by competition if conditions become unfair, and I am very glad, to say that as far as I know no unfairness exists at the present time on this score.
Therefore I sincerely believe that the regulation of these routes or placing the control of operating boats under regulation wili be directly detrimental to the development of Canada commerce.
1.	By preventing individuals from operating steamship or steamboat companies. The railroads, where they are directly competing with such water transportation, will promptly reduce their rates to such a point as to make it unprofitable for steamboats or steamships to operate. In the United States the railroads have years ago paralleled all the river routes, with the result that there is not a first-class steamboat line on any river in the United States to-day, meaning by this such as used to operate on the Ohio and Mississipi.
2.	The development of commerce along rivers and lakes depends upon competition and this not only between competing boat lines, and of course it is obvious that with rules and1 practices regulated by commission there could be no occasion, and in fact, no room for competition. Regulated transportation may be and is all right within privately owned railroads as a matter of fairness to such railroads, but railroads have not as yet bought up the great waterways in Canada. These belong to the people and the people and the railroads should' utilize them to the best advantage and with mutual freedom.
There is no question but that the legislation asked for if carried through will interfere with the growth of the Canadian Merchant Marine, and will in time eliminate every particle of water service to the package freight shipper on the Great Lakes, and I think you will agree must certainly mitigate against the new Ham-
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF THE FIRS!



RATES FROM HAMILTON

[Stage Direction]
ilton harbour development scheme. It is not regulation but free competition we want on the free water highways of Canada-regulations such as demanded will immediately wipe out all individual carriers, reduce service to a minimum and throw monopoly into the hands of the larger carriers, who no doubt will immediately sort out and absorb the attractive tonnage and leave the general public without service of any description, because it must be conceded that no steamship interest can be forced/ to establish routes of call which are not attractive and uncertain revenue. Routes are only created and maintained by competition of competitive service ; therefore many docks now favoured would be cut off the list of calls.
The shippers of Canada have enjoyed during normal times good service and fair rates. We want the same condition to return through liberal encouragement of the individual water carriers.
If there is any misunderstanding in your mind in regard to the legislation in question, will you please be good enough to confer with Mr. E. W. Nesbitt, M.P., for Oxford, who has given keen attention to this matter ever since its inception, and in a totally unprejudiced way places himself on record as opposed to any legislation carrying monopoly of our water highways towards a joint lake and rail basis.
W. R. Dunn,
International Harvester Company of Canada, Limited.
I have a list here of the rates charged in 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915 from Fort William to Montreal. It is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Average
Price
1J1S	 5.77
1913		 5.35
1914		 4-58
1915		 4.99
Surely no hon. member will say that these
are excessive charges for freight for that distance. I have also a statement of the rates charged from Hamilton to several points on what might be called ordinary freight:

[Stage Direction]
Fort William, Ont.
All Rail	
Rail Lake and Rail	
All Water	
Winnipeg, Man.
All Rail	
Rail Lake and Rail	
All Water	
Calgary, Alta.
All Rail	
Rail Lake and Rail	
All Water	
Vancouver, B.C.
All Rail	
Rail Lake and Rail	
All Water	
Montreal, P.Q.
Rail Rates now in effect	
All Water	
1.
[Stage Direction]
Classes
2.	3.
$1.28	$1.05
.761	.651
.721	.61
1.81	1.451
1.61	1.311
1.57	1.271
3.141	2.53
2.941	2.39
2.901	2.35
3.831	3.001
3.631	2:861
3.591	2.821
601	.52
.521	.45
4.	5.
.761	.63
.541	.43
.51	.41
1.13	.93
1.03	.87
1.00	.85
1.93	1.641
1.83	1.581
1.80	1.5'61
2.391	2.041
2.291	1.981
2.261	1.901
.43	.341
.33	.301
[Stage Direction]
I have also a statement here of rates by water on wheat from Fort William to Montreal .*

[Stage Direction]
1916. 1917.	19 IS. 1919.
Per	Per	Per	Per
bushel, bushel, bushel, bushel.
Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal	7.55
Fort William and Port Arthur to Georgian Bay	
Fort William and Port Arthur to other 'Canadian Ports.. .'.
Fort William and Port Arthur to Buffalo	
Principally Port Colborne.
I have a further statement here of rates on wheat from different points in the West and from Fort William to Montreal:
7,55	9.78	11.39	10.7'64.10	4.25	4.32	3.153.63	4.IS	4.48	3.464.27	5.00	4.11	3.73

[Stage Direction]
Regina to Fort William.. .. Winnipeg to Fort William. . . Pt. McNichol to Montreal.. . Fort William to Port McNichol
Fort William to Goderich.. .
Fort William to Port Colborne
Fort William to Montreal.. .
All these statments go to show that the .Lake rate is much less than that of the railways. On every occasion when I have heard my hon. friend from Fast Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) speaking in this House I have observed that he has simply used the argument that the steamboat companies should be placed under the Railway Board. The only reason he can give why this should be done is that the Railway Board is a very important body, that it has had to deal with many important cases, that it has discharged its duties with ability and that no person on the floor of this House has ever found any fault with any action it has taken. I think we all agree pretty well with his estimate of the board, but I do not think that can be advanced as a reason why Lake shipping should be placed under the control of the Railway Board. I think it is up to the hon. member -for East Lambton to show that *these steamboat companies have been exercising their privileges in a way they should not do or that they have been overcharging. He has not been able to do that; and I doubt very much if he will be able to do so, and without presenting any evidence of that kind he is endeavouring to accomplish something with the assistance of this House that should not be allowed here. Another reason which he advanced why these boats should be placed under the Railway Board is that the Governipent have established elevators in the West, have appointed commissioners to grade the farmers' 
Miles.	Rate per	100 lbs.	Rate per bushel.777 420 44S 733	Lake and	Rail..	.25	15c. 8.4 9.3 18.All Rail..	.30	15.5Lake and	Rail..	.25	15.5All Rail. .	.30	18.S97	Lake and	Rail..	.25	15.5All Rail..	.30	13.992	Lake and	Rail..	.25	15.5All Rail..	.30	IS.All Water	10.76-1919
product and have controlled freight rates to Fort William, but that when the wheat reaches Fort William the shippers are obliged to turn it over to a group of vessel [DOT]owners who of course charge them what they like.
The hon. gentleman, however, should have gone further and stated that although the commissioners controlled the freight rates to Fort William, the Canadian Pacific were charging, at this very time he. made those statements, fifteen cents a bushel for whea$ from Regina to Fort William, a distance of 777 miles. I also find that the vessels he referred to which took the grain from Fort William to Montreal, a distance of nearly one thousand miles, carried the grain for seven cents a bushel. Now just think of the Canadian Pacific getting fifteen cents a bushel for carrying wheat a distance of something near 777 miles, and the steamship companies, that he complained of, carrying -wheat for nearly one thousand miles at seven cents a bushel. Surely this is pretty good proof that there is no cause to complain against the steamship companies. In the circular the hon. member had sent out to the members of Parliament, he makes the statement, that he thinks the rate of freight charged by steamship companies, should be one-third less than the rate charged by railway companies. Let me read you a letter that I received from Mr. Payne, a government official here at Ottawa:

" You have asked me to give you some comparison of railway freight rates by water. .	.
.	.	.	. The Canadian Pacific rate on wheat
from Regina to Fort William is 24 cents per 122 pounds, which would be the equivalent of $4.80 per ton. The distance Is 777 miles. By dividing the mileage into the freight charges per ton I find that the rate is .618 cent, or a little over six-tenths of a cent per ton-mile. By the same process, and using the same factors, the rate per ton per mile last year on waterborne wheat from Fort William to Montreal was .309. This is exactly half the railway rate. During the war; as you know, freight rates on the Great Lakes have been greatly increased. In 1915, for example, the rate to Montreal was but .132 per ton per mile. Even in 1918 it was as low as .158 from Fort William to Buffalo. Speaking broadly, it might be assumed with some degree of soundness that freight rates on our inland waterways are about one-third of the railway rates."
Now let me compare the position of railway companies with that of steamboats.
(Steamship companies have no monopoly. They are given no franchise, receive no assistance in the way of grants or subsidies, the water routes are open to all vessels, and the greater the number of vessels competing for business the lower will be the rates. If vessels are placed under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission they will be required to file tariffs.
I submit that fixed rates for vessels are neither feasible, desirable, or necessary.
Fixed rates in the case of vessels are not feasible on account of:	1. Variation in
carrying capacity; 2. Variation in speed; 3. Variation in cost of insurance; 4. Variation in cost of operation at different seasons of the year. (A fair rate in summer might be a ruinous rate in November). 5. Variation in cost of operation because of:
(a)	Different depths of water In different
years.
(b)	Different depths of water at different times in same year.
(c)	Difference in loading facilities at different elevators, wharves or ports.
(d)	Difference in unloading facilities at different elevators, wharves or ports.
Fixed rates in the case of vessels are not desirable because they would:	1. Result
in an elimination of competition: 2. Place Canadian vessels at a disadvantage in competing against U. S. A. boats whose rates in ordinary times are regulated only by the lawr of supply and demand; 3. Result in vessels lying idle when set rate was unprofitable; 4. Discourage the building of further vessels.
Fixed rates in the case of vessels are not necessary, because to get business now boats now must: 1 Underbid the rail rate; 2 Underbid or meet rate charged by boats
already under Railway Commission; 3 Offer fair rates or other boats will be built.
Another objection to our boats being placed under the Railway Commission is in the fact that if our boats were placed under the Railway Board, and the Railway Board fixed a tariff, all the American boats would have to do would be to come in here and go one or two cents less. That would take trade away from our boats here, which would be most injurious to Canadian interests.
-My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) stated that the bulk freight rates in the United States were under the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I do not know where the hon. gentleman got his information, but it is certainly incorrect. I have before me a letter which was addressed to Mr. Francis King, counsel for the Dominion Marine Association, from the United States Shipping Board at Washington, which distinctly states that coal, ore and wheat are not under any restriction whatever, and the carriers are at liberty to charge what they like -for these commodities. I have another letter from Buffalo on the same subject which says:
March 17, 1920.
Referring to your inquiry of March 3, and answering your question as to whether American bulk freight rates are under any Government control, we beg to state that Amerioan bulk freight rates are not under any legal or Government control; but rates charged by the boats are (based on the natural law of supply and demand. Bulk freight cargoes such as iron ore, coal and grain are carried for the most part in vessels which are not common carriers', but are commonly known as tramp ships; and bulk freights when carried in such vessels are not under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission or the United States Shipping Board. Neither are bulk freight cargoes such as iron ore, coal or grain, even when carried in what are classed as package freighters where the carriage is limited strictly from port to port and is not part of the through rate.
Another letter from Buffalo, dealing with the same matter, says:
Buffalo, N.Y., March 16, 1920.
The undersigned are managers of a fleet of steel bulk carriers ; and we assure you that the statement that American bulk freight rates are not under any legal control, -the rates charged by the boats being based on the natural law of supply and demand, is correot.
I do not think the hon. gentleman will dispute the correctness of the foregoing statements; they come from authorities that cannot be questioned.
With respect to the finances of Canada Steamships I have a statement of its financial operations before me, and when the
[Stage Direction]
hon. gentleman attempts to satisfy the House that this company has made an enormous amount of money out of carrying freight that assertion is not correct. The Canada Steamship Company purchased a great many vessels when they entered thi3 merger. The value of these vessels has since increased very materially, and they are worth nearly double as much to-day as they were at the time the merger took place. The freight rates between Canada and Liverpool did enable the company to make some money; but out of the profit of two millions and some odd dollars which they realized last year, less than one-third of the amount was derived from freight earnings in Canadian waters. If these earnings form less than one-third of a total of approximately $2,000,000, I do not think anybody can say that the public have been robbed to any very great extent.
There is another point to which I desire briefly to refer. The cities of Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Vancouver-although I did not know until to-night the extent of the opposition in Vancouver-are strongly opposed to this Bill. I think I am safe in saying that eighy-five per cent of the total freight handled by water is carried in and out of the cities referred to. If this be true surley it is fairly strong evidence against the Bill. Take the city of Hamilton which I have the honour to represent. Two or three years ago I had occasion to look up the amount of freight carried in and out of Hamilton by water, and hon. gentlemen will be surprised when I tell them that at that time we shipped twelve times the tonnage of that of the city of Toronto, although the latter city is five times the size of the city of Hamilton. Surely there is no hon. member who will deny that in view of that amount of freight shipped by Hamilton we should have some knowledge as to how the steamship companies deal with their customers. Not one of the cities which I have mentioned but is decidedly opposed to the hon. gentleman's Bill. Under the circumstances it is surprising that the hon. gentleman should take up the time of the House year after year in seeking to have this legislation passed when the public- of Canada are almost unanimously opposed to it. In view of the fact that the cities referred to carry eighty-five to ninety per cent of the total freight that is handled by water, and they are satisfied with the terms they are getting, why does the hon. member want to have the privilege which those cities now enjoy taken away from them? I appeal to this 
House that unless some evidence can be shown that these steamboats have been overcharging, this Bill should not be allowed to pass.
Mr. W. C. KENNEDY (North Essex):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of presenting a resolution from the Chamber of Commerce of the riding that I represent. I followed very closely the argument of my hon. friend from East Lamlbton (Mr. Armstrong), and while I desire to give him credit for all that he desires to achieve by means of this Bill, I am bound to confess that I feel now very much as I did last year, that it would not be in the interests of this country to pass such legislation.
I was a member of the special committee to which the Bill was referred a year ago, and we had before that committee representatives from all the interested parties; we had the consumer, the shipper, the manufacturer, and the steamship man. After the evidence and representations that were then placed before that committee, I could come to only one conclusion,-that if this legislation as proposed were enacted the outcome would simply be wholly contrary to what apparently my hon. friend desires.
Let me say, Sir, that I am not interested in any steamship company, nor do I represent in this House any shipping concern, and if the Canada Steamship Company or any other shipping company should come to this House looking for special legislation that I feel would be for the purpose of increasing their revenue at the expense of the people, I would oppose them. But, Sir, I am interested in the consumers, and I believe that the shippers of this company, if they are privileged to have a continuance of the competition that we now have on the Great Lakes, will of necessity have the benefit of lower rates of freight.
The hon. member for East Lambton paid particular attention to the Canada Steamship Company. If he can show, as he says he can, that the Canada Steamship Company, or any other steamship company, has been exacting unjust tolls from the people of this country it is up to the Government of which he is a supporter to impose such taxation as will return this excess to the people to whom it belongs. That is the remedy in my opinion, rather than an attempt to stifle competition on the Great Lakes.
The riding that I represent, Mr. Speaker, is situated on the Detroit River, and is largely a manufacturing district in which is situated the city of Windsor and the towns of Walkerville, Ford and Ojibway.

We have a progressive Board of Commerce of 1,000 members with a transportation section,-and let me say that the members of that section do not represent any shipping interests; on the contrary, they represent the men who are shipping freight by water transportation. And after considering this Bill they brought in a unanimous report condemning the measure as not being in the public interest. It was fully
11 p.m. discussed at a general meeting, and as a result I was instructed to present the resolution and to oppose the Bill. With your permission, Mr. Speaker,
I will now read the resolution:
Whereas, the Armstrong Bill, which has been rejected by the House at Ottawa at previous sessions has been again introduced at the present session and proposes to put water rates from port to port in Canada under the control of the Railway Commission; and
Whereas, in the opinion of this Chamber of Commerce, the operation of steamship business being under entirely different conditions than rail transportation, does not lend itself to the same regulations prescribed for rail carriers.
Therefore be it resolved that this Chamber of Commerce places itself on record as opposing the passage of the Armstrong Bill and wishes the member of this constituency to so represent their views before the committee. Border Chamber of Commerce,
Executive Headquarters,
Windsor, Ontario,
11th March, 1920.
In accordance with that resolution, and for the reasons I have stated, Mr. Speaker, I purpose when the opportunity offers to vote against the Bill.


Mr. F. H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora):: Like the preceding speaker, Sir, I simply rise to present a petition from another of the shipping points much interested in this Bill-the city of Port Arthur. It reads as follows:
March 9, 1920.
Memorial Protesting against the Placing of Inland Shipping under the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Whereas the Board of Trade of Port Arthur has been advised that notice has been given by J. E. Armstrong, tile honourable member for Lambton, to again bring before the Dominion Parliament his many-times rejected Bill for the controlling of Canadian water-borne traffic;
And whereas it must be apparent to all that such control will be detrimental to the industries and the people of Canada and is apparently sought for in the interests of the railroads of the United States and Canada by the outstanding fact that vessels to subsist and develop must necessarily charge a greatly lowered rate on the carrying of freight than the railways, otherwise a lower tariff;
And whereas, Canadian-borne freight both east and westbound on the Great Lakes is more or less sporadic, with periods of shipping activity and, at other times, business so lacking as to compel the tying up of vessels;
And whereas, under such conditions no set rates of tariff can be adjusted with any fairness to vessels, and that all ratings must necessarily be set according to the exigencies of supply and demand, with a lower rating absolutely guaranteed to shippers by railway competition ;
And whereas, adequate shipping both on the Great Lakes and ocean is absolutely ncessary for Canada's fullest development and that any act detrimental to such development would be nothing more or less than a national crime;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Trade of the city of Port Arthur does herewith petition the Government of Canada, and the members comprising its Parliament, to once more reject the aforementioned Bill when brought before them, fully believing that such, if brought into effect, would be a menace to Canada's development both in her industries and people.
And it is further resolved that a copy of this be sent to the Premier of (Canada, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and to the members of Port Arthur and Port William, Dr. Manion, M.P., and Prank H. Keefer, K.C., M.P.
Frederick Urry,
President.
Jos. Z. Finzel,
Secretary.
I have only to say a word or two to accentuate what has been already stated in regard to the fixing of freight rates. When one considers the different sizes of ships one will realize that it is impossible to fix reasonable rates. As a parallel instance, take the fixing of the profit on the grinding of wheat into flour, at, say, twenty-five cents a barrel; that would give a 100-barrel mill only $25 a day, but it would give a 9,000-barrel mill $2,250 a day. A similar difficulty arises in attempting to fix rates applicable to large ships of 400,000 or 500,000 bushels as well as to small ships of 75,000 or 100,000 bushels. A rate that will give the small ship a fair return, will enable the big ship to make an enormous profit; while if a low rate is fixed for the big ship, the small ship will be driven off the lakes and competition will be stifled.
It was suggested that the construction of the St. Lawrence canal should be held up until some rate regulation is put into effect. As a matter of fact, it is the other way round. If the St. Lawrence canal is built it will mean a saving to the western farmers of at least six cents on every bushel of wheat, exported through obviating the breaking of bulk at Buffalo or New York. For instance, the states of Dakota and Minnesota would save $20,000,000 per annum on one product alone thereby. It is not, perhaps, realized how much more important it is to get the canal system completed than to be monkeying all the time with freight rates.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to assure the hon. member for Lambton East (Mr. J. E. Armstrong) that my opposition to this Bill is not inspired by the combined interest of the steamship companies and the manufacturers to whom they grant special advantages, as was suggested in his speech. I am merely expressing the unanimous opinion of the business men, traders and merchants of the city and district of which I am one of the representatives. Last year, when the proposal of my hon. friend was defeated in the House, one morning paper said afterwards that those of us who had voted against it had voted against public opinion and public interest. It is precisely because public opinion in the district from which I come is unanimously opposed to this Bill that I am going to vote against it. I will not take up the time of the House by reading letters and telegrams which I have received, but I may say that the persons who have spoken or written to me about this Bill are unanimously opposed to it. I will read merely the letter of the Quebec Board of Trade, and to save time I will translate it from the French:
Mr. Ernest Lapointe, M.P., Ottawa,
Dear Sir:-We are informed that Mr. Armstrong comes back with his famous Bill to place the inland navigation companies under the control of the Railway Commission. The Quebec Board'of Trade, like most of the other associations of the same kind in the Dominion, is strongly opposed to the adoption of this Bill, because its effect would be to deprive our merchants of the benefit of competition, in summer, in freight transportation between the railway companies and the inland navigation companies. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any serious or good reason that militates in favour of such a radical change in the situation.
The council of the Board of Trade of Quebec hopes that you, with your colleagues of the Quebec district, will act in the same way as last year, so as to postpone the adoption of this Bill to the Greek Kalends.
Your obedient servant,
T. LEVAS'S'ETJR, Secretary.
From one letter which I have received from a steamship company, which is not the Canada Steamship Company, nor under the control of that company, but which is the Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping and Trading Company, Limited, I read the following extract:
In our case, we wish to add three or four big vessels to our fleet, and we would not be able to raise the necessary capital if the Armstrong Bill was adopted.
All I wish to add is this. The waterways are natural facilities, they are the gift of

nature, and when Parliaments or men want to interfere with them, that interference should be only in such a way as to increase the facilities instead of restricting them. The case of the steamships is different from that of the railways. First, nobody comes to Parliament to ask for permission to use the waterways, and furthermore, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. T. J. Stewart) read from a document, there are all sorts of differences between vessels in matters of speed and loading capacity, differences in loading facilities at wharves and elevators and variations in the seasons, all of which make fixing freights for steamships less feasible than fixing rates for railways. We have enough restrictions in this country at the present time; we have enough beaurocracy; let us keep the air and the water free. I believe in the law of supply and demand; and if commerce by water is profitable, we may be sure that we shall have a sufficient number of steamships to carry the trade. The hardy seamen who built up the trade of the maritime powers were not prevented or restricted by any such restrictions as those which my hon. friend wants to force on Canadian seamen.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words on this very important Bill. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that the waterways and rivers and lakes are natural; that they were given to us by Divine Providence. But he knows very well that the Government of Canada, representing the people of Canada, have spent over $400,000,000 on our waterways, and that without such an expenditure, there would be very little traffic on our inland waters to-day.


Jacques Bureau: That was done for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: To build up trade.


John Flaws Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: I think it is well that I

should say a few words before the debate closes. The Bill which is now before the House, as the discussion this evening has abundantly shown, is a very important one, and there seems to be a difference of opinion on both sides of the House. The Bill is isimilar to one which was before a special committee last session, when we heard evidence for at least a day, if not longer. At that time the evidence showed that the subject matter of the Bill was considered of great importance, but it was decided not to take any action in regard to it. If this Bill were to be considered during the present session I think it would have to go before the Railway Committee again for further consideration, for I have had many letters and telegrams from various individuals asking to be given an opportunity of being heard in connection with it if it were decided to proceed with it. I was struck with one or two points in the discussion this evening, and one of them was in reference to vessels in their relation to the Railway Commission. Last session we included in the Railway Act the same clause that had been in the Act prior to the revision that took place last year. If I remember correctly, we added a word or two to the previous Act, and I shall read the clause with regard to water traffic as it now stands in [DOT]the Act. Section 358 reads as follows:
Traffic by Water.
S58. The provisions of this Act shall, in respect of tolls, tariffs and joint tariffs, so far as deemed applicable by the board, extend and apply to the traffic carried by any railway company by sea or by inland water, between any ports or places in Canada, if the company owns, charters, uses, maintains or works, or is a party to any arrangement for using, maintaining or working vesselB for carrying traffic, by sea or by inland water between any such ports or places.
In my judgment, in view of the foregoing clause, almost all vessels are virtually under the Board of Railway Commissioners at the present time; if any person wishes to apply to the board for an adjustment of freight rates. The Canadian Pacific railway own and operate a number of steamers between Port Arthur and the Georgian Bay ports.
There is no doubt whatever about those that are owned and operated by the Canadian Pacific. There is no doubt they charter a number of vessels to carry grain between Port Arthur and Georgian Bay ports. There is no doubt whatever but that they would come under this Railway Act. Taking that into consideration, it covers nearly all the vessels that are operating between our Canadian ports.
The same thing applies to the Grand Trunk and the Canadian National railways. Hon. members who come from Ontario know that the Grand Trunk has an agreement with, I think, the Northern Navigation Company for the operating of a line of steamers between Sarnia and upper lake ports. Vessels that are chartered by the Grand Trunk will also come under this Railway Act. The Canadian Government in connection with the Canadian National railways have built a great many steamers. There are twenty odd steamers that are of the Welland canal size that will likely within a very reasonable time operate between Port Arthur and Montreal. They are now operating on the ocean; they were sent to the ocean when they were constructed because of the urgency in getting foodstuffs to our soldiers overseas and also to those countries that were in such desperate need of food. There were also sent to the ocean other vessels operated by private corporations in order to carry the products of this country to foreign countries. A number of them have been plying between the West Indies and Canada, and it was very important that these vessels should operate , there in order that our food and manufactured products might be taken to the West Indies and that in return we might get sugar and the products of those islands to supplement the food supplies of the people of Canada. I mention that to show that these vessels are only temporary on the ocean. As soon as the tonnage can be produced these vessels will be operating between Port Arthur and Montreal, and they will be placed under the Board of Railway Commissioners.
The Canada Steamship Company has been referred to. I know for a fact that probably one hundred vessels were sent to sea when the war was on. That probably reduced our Canadian tonnage below what it had been prior to that time and it has not been replaced. In addition to having the advantage of these vessels under the Board of Railway Commissioners and being in a position to control rates, if the board can do so on account of this clause, let me also say that the people of the West have always had and now have competition in so far as freight between Montreal and Port Arthur is concerned. There is some arrangement by which the rates from Halifax and St. John in winter, and Quebec, and Montreal, New York, Boston and other Atlantic ports in summer, are the same to ports in England. Therefore the only place where there could be any possible chance of taking advantage of competitive or controlled rates would be

between Port Arthur and Montreal. Hon. members know that there is a water route between Port Arthur and New York. Large steamers go to Buffalo;. the grain is transshipped there and sent on to New York and the rate from Port Arthur to New York is ^always up against the rate from Port Arthur to Montreal. The result is that our farmers in the West always have a competitive rate. Shippers in purchasing the grain of the West know that it is absolutely impossible for the Canada Steamships lines, or the several other steamship companies having large steamers in Canada, to prohibit grain from going other than by the Canadian route.
I feel that that is a protection that will always justify leaving these vessels open to competition. However this is a big question and one that has merits on both sides. My hon. friend from East Lambton has taken a keen interest in it for several years. No one can blame him for taking an interest in it or for believing as he does and trying to have his idea crystallized into law. Others are opposed to the idea just as much as he is in favour of it. The question is so important that I feel it would not be fair to those who have so much money invested to let this matter go without giving them a full opportunity of placing before the members of this House through a committee the position they would take in connection with this Bill. I know there are a number of other members who w'ould like to speak on this very important matter but the hour is getting late and they feel it would be impossible for them to do justice to the subject or to say what they wish to say. I would like to say more than I have in the few minutes I have spoken. But as the hour is getting late I would beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY moved the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Wednesday, April 28, 1920.